



■^V- ..X 



or i 






'^<-^^' 















"•-0^ 



"o V 



•^ 












x^ 















^'^^> c.-^ 

.<^^'%. 



^' * 









^^ «^n 



» V-, ft- -i a't "V- /- ,^. 



-^ 



•-^^ 



^J-. ,.N 



\0 -7- 







%.^' ;MI 


















,V 'V 



.^•^ 






^'^^ 



0^-^.. 
.<^" 



'^/. *-^'' ^^.s 



■x'?-' 















•-% 



-^^^ 



\ _.^ ^ * 



.0^ 






>■ 






.x^' 



^. '' I :\ s - .'N 



,•0' 



AN , N ' » < ^ 



w^ 










'' ;'^' 


%. 







\^\^-'.'^> -^' .r ^. 






•V A** «. 



%K^' 






^^ <Cr 



^3 '", s^ A 



'' 'o 















^■^'-'-'^ cP-.^:^» 









* •) N O ' \^ 



"O, * 



,0- 



'/- '»'»->> V 




.^^'.-".% *-^'o^o-- '^>*•-"^^^^> ^. 



.0' t * o 



N^-^^, 









..-iN^^ .^ 



■c- . ,^' 












.^^^ 






.0-' 



^ .->-^-^ -^ 






X^^ Xc 



_-; o. 






<3 C5, , " 



^•^ ^ , X 



r^ ^^-0^ 


















,•0- „ 



:" -./^b. 

-"W^ - 






A** 



^tli it not 



f 9 



) i 'w^ 




No. 







/y!i, /^v- ;^ i^ *-'--*- *^ . — 



« 




% 



OBSERVATIONS 



ON THE 



WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, 



WITH 



PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE ATTACK THEY CONTAIN 



ON THE 



MEMORY 

OP THE 

LATE GEN. HENRY LEE. 

IN A SERIES OF LETTERS, 
BY H. LEE. 



SECOND EDITION, 
WITH AN 

INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, 
BY CHARLES CARTER LEE. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

J. DOBSON; THOMAS, COWPERTHWAIT & CO.; CAREY & HART. 
1839. 



/*" -r' r\ '■' 



,j4^G%^ 



Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1839, by Judah 
DoBsoN, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania. 

/ g~y V - . . 

/' •-' 



E. G. DORSEY, PRINTER; 
LIBRARY STREET. 



? 



CONTENTS. 



LETTER I. 



Mr. Jefferson's letter containing the attack on the character of Gen Lee 
with observations on it. Gen. Washington's letter to Mr. Jefferson' 
October 13, 1789, with remarks. Secret hostility of Mr. Jefferson to Gen' 
Washington. Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Madison, - . page 5 



LETTER II. 

Observations on Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Madison, on the state of parties 
in 1794. Mr. Genet's conduct. Democratic Societies. Society of the 
Cincinnati. W^estern Insurrection, oi 

LETTER in. 

The same subject continued. Conduct of Mr. Jefferson with respect to the 

Western Insurrection. Letter of Gen. Washington to Gen. Lee, October 

20, 1794. Mr. Jefferson's remarks on and connection with Col. Burr— 

His calumnies against Alexander Hamilton. Burr's Conspiracy. Luther 

Martin, ^ 

" - - - 45 

LETTER IV. 

Continuation and conclusion of Remarks on the letter to Mr. Madison. Mr. 
Jefferson's attacks on Gen. Washington and his friends— His conduct in 
reference to Jay's Treaty. Jacobins. Public Debt, - - - 57 

LETTER V. 

Mr. Jefferson's calumnies against the friends and measures of Gen. Wash- 
ington. Impossibility of Mr. Jefferson's believing his own accusations. 
Mr. Adams. Henry, alias k Comte de Crillon. Mr. Jefferson's incon- 
sistency with regard to the funding system, &c. - - . 73 

LETTER VI. 

Mr. Jefferson's famous letter to Mazzei— His disingenuousness with regard 
to it. Mr. Giles's speech, qq 



n 



11 



j LETTER VII. 

Observations on Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Van Buren, 29th June, 1824. 
Loss of Gen. Washington's Diary and of the correspondence respecting 
the letter to Mazzei. D^ Stuart's statement. Levees, &c. Mr. Pickering. 
Mr Jefferson's correspondence with Mazzei. Estrangement between 
Gen Washington and Mr. Jefferson. Criticism on Mr. Tucker's Remarks. 
Mr. Lewis' letter on this subject. Mr. Jefferson's attack on Judge Mar- 
shall, 

LETTER VIII. 

Observations on Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Van Buren continued. Re- 
marks on Mr. Jefferson's letters to Mr. Monroe, Gen. Gates, Col. Burr, 
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Taylor, stigmatizing Gen. Wash- 
ington, his friends and his measures. Gen. Washington's note to Gen. 
Lee-His regard for Gen. Lee. Debate in French Chamber of Deputies 
respecting Gen. Washington, 

LETTER IX. 

Mr. Jefferson's measures in the Legislature of Virginia. The Declaration 
of Independence— Remarks on an article on this subject in the New York 
Review. Comparison between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Mason. Mr. Jef- 
ferson elected Governor of Virginia-His flight from Richmond, &c. &c. 
Remarks on Gen. Lee's Memoirs. Remarks on Mr. Jefferson's defence 
of his conduct-Charges brought against him in the House of Delegates 
—His Abdication. Gen. Nelson. Observations on Gerardin's work, 123 

LETTER X. 

Gen. Lee— his early life— his military services— his contributions to the 
public cause. Mr. Jefferson's conduct in this respect. Gen. Greene's 
letter to the President of Congress relative to Gen. Lee's services. Gen. 
Washington's letters on the same subject, - - - - 147 

LETTER XI. 

Mr. Jefferson appointed Minister to France— His ''Chinese Policy'' with 
regard to Commerce. Mr. Jefferson and Genet— His connection with 
Callender. Purchase of Louisiana. The Embargo. Gunboat System. 
Mr. Monroe's mission to France. Mr. Livingston. Mr. Jefferson's pre- 
tensions to the credit of Economical Reform— to Literature and Science 
—His Ethical Doctrines— He speaks with contempt of St. Paul— Ridi- 
cules Plato— Lauds and welcomes Tom Paine— His Materialism, 155 



Ill 

LETTER XII. 

Gen. Lee's subsequent career — He prepares the Address to Gen. Washing- 
ton presented by the citizens of Alexandria, and the Resolutions in Con- 
gress on the Death of Gen. Washington — Letters to him on behalf of 
Mrs. Washington. Proceedings in Congress on the subject of a Monu- 
ment to Gen. W^ashington. A beautiful marble Sarcophagus to contain 
the remains of Gen. Washington presented by Mr. John Struthers of 
Philadelphia. Alien and Sedition Laws. Designs of France against the 
Union. Effects of the Embargo. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Adarns. Gen. 
Lee shares in the hostility of Mr. Jefferson against Gen. Washington, 
Hamilton, Knox, Jay, Marshall, and others, - - - . 170 

LETTER Xm. 

Gen. Washington — His Character. Mr. Jefferson's insinuations, his mis- 
statements and contradictions on this subject — His letter to Dr. Jones, 
with remarks. Gen. Washington's letter to Mr. Nicholas respecting the 
secret hostility of Mr. Jefferson, ------ 182 

LETTER XIV. 

Alexander Hamilton — his character and services — his Duel with Col. Burr 
— Mr. Jefferson's misstatements and calumnies respecting him — his ran- 
cour against him — his letter to Mellish. Mr. Tucker's observations on 
the character of Gen. Hamilton, with remarks, . - - 194 

LETTER XV. 

Gen. Knox — his character — his services — Mr. Jefferson's bitterness against 
him — Gen. Washington's great esteem for him — Opinions of Lord Moira, 
Dr. Thacher,and the Marquis Chastellux respecting him — Mr. Jefferson's 
heartless notice of his pecuniary difficulties. Reconciliation of Mr. Jef- 
ferson and Mr. Adams, when the latter agrees to sacrifice his former 
friends — Mr. Jefferson's letter on the occasion, with remarks. Kentucky 
Resolutions. Strange discovery of Mr. Adams with respect to the Navy. 
Mr. Jefferson opposed (o the Navy — denounces it and its advocates in 
1799 — his letter to Mr. Gerry. Gen. Knox the father of the Navy. Mr. 
Humphreys' publication on this subject. Note respecting Mr. Jefferson 
and the Navy — His contempt for "mechanics." Mr. Jefferson's indeli- 
cacy in violating the sanctity of social intercourse, - - - 205 

LETTER XVI. 

John Jay — his character — his services— his Treaty with Great Britain — 
Mr. Jefferson's malevolence and continual slanders against him. Justice 
done him by Mr. Adams with regard to signing the Declaration of Inde- 



IV 

pendence. Mr. Jefferson's duplicity in this matter — he attacks the repu- 
tation of Mr. Hooper, 221 

LETTER XVII. 

Richard Henry Lee — his character and services. Mr. Jefferson's injustice 
to him — striking instance of it, with remarks. Singular adjurations used 
by Mr. Jefferson on particular occasions — His unfairness to Mr. Lee in 
his account of the circumstances attending the adoption of the Declaration 
of Independence, &c. Remarks on Mr. Jefferson's overture to Mr. Ran- 
dolph in England. Mr. Lee's attack on and defeat of a British party on 
the shores of the Potomac. Mr. Jefferson's unfair criticism on the Style of 
Mr. Lee and his brother Arthur. The opinion of "Junius" respecting 
that of Arthur Lee. Arthur Lee's letter to the Earl of Shelburne. Criti- 
cism on Mr. Jefferson's style. Mr. Lee more eloquent and a better scholar 
than Mr. Jefferson, 230 

LETTER XVIIL 

.John Marshall, (Chief Justice U. S.) — his character and services — As 
statesman, diplomatist, author or judge, the constant theme of Mr. Jeffer- 
son's obloquy and abuse. Mr. Jefferson's calumnies not believed even 
by his partisans. Remarks on the Jeffersoniana. The statements in 
Marshall's Life of Washington corroborated by Mr. Jefferson's attacks 
on them. Anecdote of Mr. Bayard, proving that Mr. Jefferson's Anas are 
not to be relied on. Judge Marshall's political creed coincided with that 
of Gen. Washington — His mission to France. Mr. Jefferson on this 
occasion grossly slanders him, and abandons the rights and honour of his 
country on occasion of the outrages of France — His letter to Mr. Gerry, 
June 21, 1797. Judge Marshall's account of the infamous conduct of 
Talleyrand and Barras violently denied by Mr. Jefferson, but by no other 
person — its truth confirmed by Napoleon Bonaparte. Perpetual contra- 
dictions to be found between the different portions of Mr. Jefferson's writ- 
ings — Ample proof of this — South Carolina Yazoo Company — The 
Judiciary — The Public Press — France and England — French Jacobins — 
His Inaugural Address, &c. 243 

POSTSCRIPT. 

Extract from the Nexo York Review for April, 1839, with Remarhs. 

On Mr. Jefferson's credibility as an historical witness — The fallaciousness 
of his historical testimony — His wanton and unjust disparagement of the 
characters of the most eminent men in our annals. Contrast between the 
"Writings of Washington" and those of Jefferson, - - - 259 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



In preparing the following observations, I felt the want of 
many sources of authority and information, which exist only 
in the United States. 

It was, in consequence, my intention to postpone their 
publication until after my return. But that having been unex- 
pectedly deferred, I deem it my duty to submit to the public 
without further delay, such a defence of my father's memory, 
as the few materials within my reach, have enabled me to 
compose. The truths it contains will speak for themselves, 
and any errors which may be discovered, I shall be most 
willing to acknowledge and retract. 

H. LEE. 
Paris, Dec. 2, 1 83 1. 



The Notes by the present Editor are enclosed in brackets, 
for the purpose of distinguishing them. 



INTRODUCTION 

[by the PRESEJfT EDITOR.] 



The object of this work is to defend the memory of General 
Lee from a vague charge of malicious slander. The method 
pursued is to ascertain, as distinctly as possible, what that 
communication of General Lee to General Washington was, 
which Mr. Jefferson alleges to have been slanderous; and then 
to shew that it was true, and such as it would have been a 
failure of duty on the part of General Lee to have withheld. 
To make his defence complete, it was thought necessary to 
shew, further, that abuse from Mr. Jefferson affords not the 
slightest proof of demerit, since he heaped it on the heads of 
the most illustrious men of his country; and that he spared no 
persons, classes, or nations, who obstructed his purposes or 
excited his displeasure. To accomplish this, required that 
extensive examination of his correspondence which will be 
found in this volume, and demanded, moreover, an inquiry 
into the justice of those censures which he so profusely applied. 
This necessarily led to occasional considerations of those lead- 
ing measures of the federal party which were the objects of 
Mr. Jefferson's attacks, and the grounds of his reproaches 
against their authors and supporters. But of these measures 
no just judgment can be formed without a full and fair con- 
sideration of the circumstances under which they were adopt- 
ed, and the exigences they were designed to meet. Unfortu- 
nately, there is no history of the period referred to which 
commands the unqualified assent of the whole country. Even 
the character of Marshall has not yet hushed the whispers of 
party incredulity; nor did it fall within the scope of his design 
to go into a minute narrative of any events unconnected with 
the character and conduct of the great subject of his biography. 
Besides, it terminates in the midst of that crisis, of the whole 
of which an accurate and impartial account is so much wanting. 
Therefore, to prepare the reader as briefly as possible to take 



VIU 

a just view of the subjects of controversy which will be pre- 
sented to him in the following pages, I can do nothing better 
than to offer him a few of the most valuable materials for a 
history of that period. 

It would seem impossible that a citizen of this country could 
desire any evidence better than the testimony of Washington, 
upon any subject in relation to which he would undertake to 
bear testimony: for his justice, discernment and love of truth, 
have received the highest commendation both from friend and 
foe. The reader will be presented in the course of this work 
with so many evidences of what was his view of the condition 
of the country during the eventful years of 1798-9, that I shall 
insert here an extract from only one of his letters. This was 
written to Patrick Henry, urging him to resume his place in 
the councils of his country, to combat the pernicious doctrines 
which threatened its best interests with destruction. It is 
dated January 15, 1799, (Vol. II. p. 387,) and after referring 
to the natural aversion which men of character felt to "expose 
themselves to the calumnies of their opponents, whose weapons 
are detraction,''^ he adds: "But at such a crisis as this, when 
every thing dear and valuable to us is assailed; when this 
party hangs upon the wheels of government as a dead weight, 
opposing every measure that is calculated for defence and self- 
preservation, abetting the nefarious views of another nation 
upon our rights; preferring, as long as they dare contend openly 
against the spirit and resentment of the people, the interest of 
France to the welfare of their own country, justifying the 
former at the expense of the latter; — when every act of their 
own government is tortured, by constructions they will not 
bear, into attempts to infringe and trample upon the constitu- 
tion with a view to introduce monarchy; — when the most 
unceasing and the purest exertions, which were making to 
maintain a neutrality, proclaimed by the executive, approved 
unequivocally by Congress, by the State Legislatures, nay, by 
the people themselves in various meetings, and to preserve the 
country in peace, are charged with being measures calculated 
to favour Great Britain at the expense of France, and all those 
who had any agency in it are accused of being under the in- 
fluence of the former and her pensioners; when measures are 
systematically and pertinaciously pursued, which must 
eventually dissolve the union or produce coercion; I say, 
when these things have become so obvious, ought characters 
who are best able to rescue their country from pending evil to 
remain at home? Rather ought they not to come forward, 



i 



IX 

and by their talents and influence stand in the breach which 
such conduct has made on the peace and happiness of this 
country, and oppose the widening of it? 

"Vain will it be to look for peace and happiness, or for the 
security of liberty or property, if civil discord should ensue. 
And what else can result from the policy of those among us, 
who, by all the measures in their power, are driving matters 
to extremity, if they cannot be counteracted effectually? The 
views of men can only be known or guessed at by their words 
or actions. Can those of the leaders of opposition be mistaken, 
then, if judged by this rule? That they are followed by num- 
bers, who are unacquainted with their designs, and suspect as 
little the tendency of their principles, I am fully persuaded. 
But if their conduct is viewed with indifference, if there are 
activity and misrepresentation on one side, and supineness on 
the other, their numbers accumulated by intriguing and discon- 
tented foreigners under proscription, who were at war with 
their own governments, and the greater part of them with all 
governments, they will increase, and nothing short of Omni- 
science can foretell the consequences." 

The venerable patriot whom Washington thus addressed had 
expressed corresponding views and sentiments, just one week 
before, to Mr. Blair, of Richmond, in a letter so admirable, so 
impressive, and so much to my present purpose, that I shall 
make no apology for transferring it entire from the appendix 
to the eleventh volume (page 557) of Washington's Writings, 
compiled by Mr. Sparks. 

«i?e^ Hill, Charlotte, Sth Jan., 1799. 
"Dear Sir, — 

"Your favour of the 2Sth of last month I have received. Its 
contents are a fresh proof that there is cause for much lamen- 
tation over the present state of things in Virginia. It is pos- 
sible that most of the individuals who compose the contending 
factions are sincere, and act from honest motives. Bitt if is 
more than probable that certain leaders meditate a change 
in government. To effect this, I see no way so practicable 
as dissolving the confederacy. And I am free to own, that 
in my judgment most of the measures lately pursued by the 
opposition party, directly and certainly lead to that end. If 
this is not the system of the party they have none, and act 
extempore. I do acknowledge that I am not capable to form 
a correct judgment on the present politics of the world. The 
wide extent to which the present contentions have gone will 



scarcely permit any observer to see enough in detail to enable 
him to form any thing like a tolerable judgment on the final 
result, as it may respect the nations in general. But as to 
France, I have no doubt in saying that to her it will be calami- 
tous. Her conduct has made it the interest of the great family 
of mankind to wish the downfall of her present government, 
because its existence is incompatible with that of all others 
within its reach. And, whilst I see the dangers which threaten 
ours from her intrigues and her arms, I am not so much alarmed 
as at the apprehension of her destroying the great pillars of 
all government and of social life; I mean virtue, morality, 
and religion. This is the armour, my friend, and this alone, 
that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should 
study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed. 
In vain may France show and vaunt her diplomatic skill and 
brave troops; so long as our manners and principles remain 
sound, there is no danger. But believing, as I do, that these 
are in danger, that infidelity in its broadest sense, under the 
name of philosophy, is fast spreading, and that under the 
patronage of French manners and principles, every thing that 
ought to be dear to inan is covertly hut successfully assailed, 
I feel the value of those men among us who hold out to the 
world the idea that our continent is to exhibit an originality of 
character; and that, instead of that imitation and inferiority 
which the countries of the old world have been in the habit of 
exacting from the new, we shall maintain that high ground 
upon which nature has placed us, and that Europe will alike 
cease to rule us and give us modes of thinking. 

"But I must stop short, or else this letter will be all preface. 
These prefatory remarks, however, I thought proper to make, 
as they point out the kind of character amongst our country- 
men most estimable in my eyes. General Marshall and his 
colleagues exhibited the American character as respectable. 
France, in the period of her most triumphant fortune, beheld 
them unappalled. Her threats left them as she found them, 
mild, temperate, firm. Can it be thought, that with these 
sentiments I should utter any thing tending to prejudice Gen. 
Marshall's election? Very far from it indeed. Independently 
of the high gratification I felt from his public ministry, he 
ever stood high in my esteem as a private citizen. His temper 
and disposition were always pleasant; his talents and integrity 
unquestioned. These things are sufficient to place that gentle- 
man far above any competitor in the District for Congress. 
But, when you add the particular information and insight which 



XI 

he has gained, and is able to communicate to our public coun- 
cils, it is really astonishing that even blindness itself should 
hesitate in the choice. But it is to be observed that the efforts 
of France are to loosen the confidence of the people every 
w^here in the public functionaries, and to blacken characters 
most eminently distinguished for virtue, talents, and public 
confidence; thus smoothing the way to conquest, or those 
claims of superiority as abhorrent to my mind as conquest, 
from whatever quarter they may come. 

"Tell Marshall I love him, because he felt and acted as a 
republican, as an American. The story of the Scotch mer- 
chants and tories voting for him is too stale, childish and foolish, 
and is a French finesse; an appeal to prejudice, not to reason 
and good sense. If they say in the day time the sun shines, 
we must say it is the moon; if, again, we ought to eat our 
victuals: No, say we, unless it is a ragout or fricassee; and so 
on to turn fools, in the same proportion as they grow wise. 
But enough of such nonsense. 

''As to the particular words stated to you and said to come 
from me, I do not recollect saying them. But certain I am, I 
never said any thing derogatory to General Marshall; but on 
the contrary, I really should give him my vote for Congress, 
preferably to any citizen in the state at this juncture, one only 
excepted, and that one is in another line. 

"I am too old and infirm ever again to undertake public 
concerns. 1 live much retired, amidst a multiplicity of bless- 
ings from that Gracious Ruler of all things, to whom I owe 
unceasing acknowledgments for his unremitted goodness to 
me; and if I was permitted to add to the catalogue one other 
blessing, it should be, that my countrymen should learn wisdom 
and virtue, and in this their day to know the things that pertain 
to their peace. 

"Farewell. I am, dear sir, yours, 

"Patrick Henry." 

If the testimony of these cool, sagacious, and impartial men 
required any thing to give it force, it would be found in the 
remarkable coincidence of their statements. That a change of 
government was meditated; — that to effect this, a systematic 
attempt to dissolve the union was being made; — that to facili- 
tate this design, every thing dear to man, and the foundation 
of all government, was assailed; — that to break the human 
mind from all those ties with which the good and great of 
every age and nation have sought to bind it to virtue and lift 



Xll 

it to God; — and that the weapon chiefly relied on in this nefa- 
rious warfare was calumny, — are facts clearly attested by these 
illustrious witnesses, not in anger, but in sorrow — not to injure, 
but to preserve. And better evidence it would be impossible 
to have, except that which may even yet exist among the cor- 
respondence of the persons who are implicated in these charges. 
It was not, however, to have been presumed that any such 
would have yet been exposed to the public gaze. Yet such 
was the imprudence which presided over the publication of 
Mr. Jefferson's Writings, that I turned to them with some 
confidence, to discover some confirmation of the evidence just 
adduced. For knowing (as is fully proved in this work) his 
zealous and active agency in all the political movements of his 
party in Virginia, it was evident that his correspondence dur- 
ing the period referred to, must, if published, have thrown 
much light upon the objects of his partizans, and the means by 
which they were to have been accomplished; and if not pub- 
lished, the very suppression of it would be almost as expressive 
as the letters themselves could be. For it must be borne in 
mind that the legislative session of 1798-9 is the epoch of the 
glory of the Jeffersonians of Virginia. To have been engaged 
on the successful side of the struggles of that crisis, forms, even 
now, a title to renown with those exclusive patriots, far supe- 
rior to any that was won in the fields of the revolution; and it 
was Mr. Jefferson's aid and guidance through those struggles 
which has won for him the title of "apostle of liberty." 
Therefore, as these apostolic services were chiefly" rendered 
by the aid of the pen, it was to be supposed that every scrip 
which fell from that potent instrument in the hand of Mr. 
Jefferson, would have been carefully preserved and diligently 
disseminated. In turning, however, to his correspondence for 
six months preceding the meeting of the legislature, and the 
first month of its session, (the period to prepare for and mature 
the great measures of that body,) we find the whole embraced 
between pages 393 and 405 of his third volume; and examining 
these more particularly, we discover but three for the month 
of June, 1798, not one for July, but one in August, one in 
September, one in October, one in November, and in the 
momentous month of December, pregnant with these famous 
resolutions of Virginia, not one! How does this happen? 
That his pen was idle, no one can imagine. Indeed, the let- 
ters published prove that it was not. Why, then, during this 
glorified epoch of his followers, are so many of the epistles of 



Xlll 

this new apostle hidden from the benighted and inquiring 
world? 

If the absence of some create surmises unfavourable to Mr. 
Jefferson and his party, those which are published are not likely 
to produce an opposite impression. On the contrary, they point 
at a change of government, discuss a dissolution of the Union, 
apologize for "half-confidences" from fears of exposure through 
the infidelities of the post-offices, and brandish his favourite 
weapon, detraction, with his usual ruthlessness and skill. To 
Mr. Taylor, the mover of Mr. Madison's famous resolutions 
of ^98, he says, (June 1st, 1798,) "Mr. New shewed me your 
letter on the subject of the patent, which gave me an oppor- 
tunity of observing what you said as to the effect, with you, of 
public proceedings, and that it was not unwise now to estimate 
the separate mass of Virginia and North Carolina, ivith a view 
to their separate existence.'' From this view, however, he 
gently dissents, among others, for the following curious and 
not complimentary reason to either party: ^^ Seeing that we 
must have somebody to quarrel with, I had rather keep our 
New England associates for that purpose, than to see our bick- 
erings transferred to others. They are circumscribed within 
such narrow limits, and their population so full, that their 
numbers will ever be the minority; and they are marked, like 
the Jews, with such a perversity of character, as to constitute, 
from that circumstance, the natural division of our parties." 

To the same gentleman he writes again, (Nov. 26, 1798,) 
"I owe you a political letter. Yet the infidelities of the post- 
office and the circumstances of the times are against my writing 
fully and freely, whilst my own dispositions are as much 
against mysteries, inuendoes and half confidences. I know 
not which mortifies me most, that I should fear to write what 
I think, or my country bear such a state of things. Yet Lyon's 
Judges and a jury of all nations are objects of national (rational?) 
fear. We agree in all the essential ideas of your letter. JVe 
agree particularly in the necessity of some reform, and oj 
some better security for civil liberty.'' ****** 
^^For the present,! should be for resolving the alien and sedi- 
tion laws to be against the constitution and merely void, and 
for addressing the other states to obtain similar declarations; 
and I would not do any thing at this moment which should 
commit us further, but reserve ourselves to shape our future 
m,easures or no measures, by the events ivhich may happen.^' 
He concludes with wishing his correspondent health, happiness 
and safety, italicizing the last word. 



XIV 

One thing, at least, is certain from this letter — that "the 
apostle of liberty" possessed nothing of the spirit of a martyr; 
but rather than run the remotest risk of encountering the 
judges and juries of his country, swallowed the mortification 
of confessing to his friend that he feared to write what he 
thought; even when those thoughts were to be used for "the 
better security of civil liberty." Now, Professor Tucker 
asserts that the charge, often made against INIr. Jefferson's 
courage, "is preposterous;" and as "conclusive evidence" of 
the truth of this assertion, avers "that he had determined to 
challenge" a political assailant in Albemarle, ^^andivoidd have 
done so, if the friend he consulted had seconded his purposeP^ 
Yet as this proof of courage may not be quite so satisfactory 
to some readers as Mr. Tucker thinks it must be to "men in 
general," — especially as his flights are the only memorable 
parts of his campaigns against Arnold and Tarleton, when, as 
Governor of Virginia, he should have been, according to the 
code of the brave, derived from times as early as Homer, 

"The first in valour as the first in place," — 

it may be juster, for the purposes of this discussion, to admit 
that Mr. Jefferson was not very valiant. Yet what must have 
been the subjects of his correspondence with Mr. Taylor, upon 
which he was afraid to indulge in more than "mysteries, inu- 
endos and half confidences" — afraid of a judge and a jury if 
he did? We see that they related to reform, to political mea- 
sures, to action to be adopted to resist the laws of the land, 
through which he deemed it pertinent to wish his correspon- 
dent safety, and about which he ^^ feared'" to write what he 
thought. What, then, could have been those designs, dangerous 
to the safety of those who even uttered them, unless such as 
are stated by Washington and Henry to have been in agitation, 
and to have been so systematically pursued as to have disturbed 
their brave and patriotic souls? But far be it from me to im- 
pute any thing criminal to Col. Taylor upon authority so unsafe 
as Mr. Jefferson's. It is entirely within the laws of his charac- 
ter, congenial with his temper and kindred to his arts, — to 
instil, under the guise of disapproving, — to stimulate, while 
pretending to dissuade, — to urge on, while appearing to check, 
— and, a skilful rider of men as he was, to make the bridle 
perform the office of the spur. But that Mr. Jefferson had in 
his own contemplation measures which he deemed grave and 
dangerous, there can be no doubt; and these letters of his may 



XV 

fairly be deemed corroborative of those of Washington and 
Henry. 

But if it be supposed that Washington and Henry were 
mistaken in the views of their political opponents, it will hardly 
be questioned, at this day, but that they sincerely entertained 
the belief they have so solemnly recorded. And if such men 
were alarmed at the condition of their country, and apjirehend- 
ed innovation upon its social, and subversion to its political, 
system, may not those who habitually regarded the first as the 
father of his country, and the best human guide his countrymen 
could follow, be pardoned if they were impressed with similar 
apprehensions? Would it not then be the dictate of justice as 
well as of charity to believe that those measures of the two 
first administrations of the federal government which were 
peculiarly ofiensive to their political opponents, were adopted 
with a view to the preservation of our institutions, rather than 
a conversion of them into monarchy? For it should be remem- 
bered that, from the beginning, those ranged themselves into 
the federal party who deemed licentiousness the euthanasia of 
liberty, and that anarchy was the state of transition through 
which only our republics could degenerate into despotism. It 
was to guard against this, as well as to repel foreign aggression, 
and to harmonize our councils where our interests were com- 
mon, that they conceived the vast design of the federal govern- 
ment, which they endeavoured to endue with strength suitable 
to its colossal proportions, and adequate to its benevolent ends. 
From the beginning, too, these federalists thought that they 
had but imperfectly executed their gigantic plan; — that the 
states had more common interests than they had consented to 
submit to united legislation; and had refused to impart to their 
common government strength and stability sufficient for the 
proper discharge of the duties confided to its care. When, 
therefore, the French subversion (as Gibbon called it) burst 
upon the world, and stormed every citadel of order, every 
defence of virtue, every sanctuary of right; — when those frantic 
efibrts were astonishing mankind with their success, as much 
as appalling them with their atrocity; — when the fairest por- 
tions of Europe had been made hideous by their triumphs, and 
their prelusive orgies had begun to profane our shores, — was 
it not natural, nay, was it not necessary, that those same fede- 
ralists should have been greatly alarmed for their liberties, 
assailed by this unparalleled hurricane of licentiousness; and 
for their institutions, attacked by a tempest of anarchy never 
before equalled upon earth. From all other scourges which 



XVI 

had afflicted mankind, in every age and in every nation, there 
had been some temporary refuge, some shelter, until the 
storm might pass. During the heathenism of antiquity, and 
the barbarism of the middle ages, the temple of a god or the 
shrine of a saint offered a refuge from despotic fury or popu- 
lar rage. But French Jacobins, whether native or adopted, 
treated with equal scorn the sentiments of religion and the 
feelings of humanity; and all that man had gathered from 
his experience upon earth, and the revelations be hoped had 
been made him from the sky, to bless and adorn his mortal 
existence, and elevate his soul with immortal aspirations, 
was spurned as imposture by those fell destroyers. They 
would have depraved man from his humanity, as they attempt- 
ed to decree God out of his universe. Not contented with 
France as a subject for their ruthless experiments, — Europe 
itself being too narrow for their exploits, — they sent their 
propagandists to the new world, with designs about as chari- 
table as those with which Satan entered Eden. And it was, 
too, with the fruits of the tree of knowledge that we were to 
be tempted. We were told, that so great was our ignorance, 
that we did not even know how to address each other. That 
the titles of respect and courtesy with which the nations of 
Christendom had softened their social intercourse were bar- 
barous, aristocratic and abominable, and should be superseded 
by the polished and democratic address of ^^citizeji," which 
had the double advantage of being fraternal to the affiliated 
few, and insulting to the uninitiated many. We were even 
taught that the homage which it is so delightful to the heart of 
man to pay to woman, that he can never pronounce her name 
without prefixing to it some signal of respect, or some articu- 
lated sigh of gallantry, was entirely unworthy of him since 
the French regeneration; and that instead of Madam, Mistress, 
Lady, — words endeared by so many associations through so 
many generations, w^hose very sounds are magic music, — were 
to be merged at once in the double hiss of the new-coined 
appellative, "Citess." Their graven lessons, even when par- 
taking largely of the nature of the tiger, lost nothing of the 
monkey. Human Reason received fantastic homage as a goddess 
from those who triumphed in the legislative decree that there 
was no God; and that grave faculty was sought to be honoured 
by the most ridiculous rites and childish ceremonies. With 
kindred consistency, doctrines which cut off every prospect of 
futurity, which shut out every ray of celestial light, and left 
the mind in the most dismal darkness, were inculcated under 



xvu 

the name of '^ Illumination;^^ while republicanism, which is 
the establishment and protection of equal rights by equal laws, 
was sought to be founded upon the ruins of every source of 
authority and social stability, whether human or divine. That 
such chimeras should have been ever bred from the wildest 
fermentations of thought, and received existence so palpable 
and prominent, as to have commanded the assent and affected 
the conduct of a large portion of civilized mankind, is perhaps 
the most surprising among those social phenomena which per- 
plex the wisest and alarm the bravest. Yet the attentive reader 
of our history will be convinced that they had so infected our 
country, that nothing less than the character of Washington, 
consecrated as it was in the aflfections of the people, and the 
strength of the federal government, vigorous from his hand 
and popular from his virtues, could have resisted the frenzy of 
the time. The candid inquirer will be satisfied that it was 
necessary to strain every conservative power of that govern- 
ment to preserve it, and the great interests it protected, from 
the gravest disaster; and that those who administered it, so far 
from being fired with the ambitious hope of enlarging its capaci- 
ties and increasing their legitimate authority, were struggling, 
and trembling while they struggled, for the existence of both. 
The result of them was that which has attended too many of 
the best and purest efibrts of patriots, public odium instead of 
eternal gratitude. But they found a very ample reward for 
sacrificing themselves, in having saved their country. They 
brought the constitution safe through the conflict, though, 
unfortunately, somevvhat infected with the odium which was 
cast upon its champions. The charge that "the great result of 
our revolution" (as the constitution has been happily called) 
was only a mitigated form of the British monarchy, designed 
by its framers ultimately to assume all its attributes, then first 
gained ground in the popular belief, and was a necessary step 
in attempting to prove that those who then administered it 
were monarchists in principle, and were preparing to erect a 
throne upon the ruins of the republic. As these treasonable 
imputations were fastened upon the framers of the constitution, 
it was natural that suspicions should attach to the soundness of 
their great work; and to this day the same persons who impute 
to the old federalists monarchical designs, attack the consti- 
tution as calculated to have facilitated them. It was, there- 
fore, not only to relieve those good and great men from the 
unjust imputations cast upon their memory, which has animated 
me through the irksome labour of my humble share in this 



XVlll 

publication — I have hoped, that when they shall be no longer 
regarded as having been monarchists in principle, their greatest 
work will not be looked on as the offspring and fit instrument 
of monarchical designs; and that the vindication of their cha- 
racters will inure to the benefit of the constitution. It is to 
be hoped, that when the public mind shall have escaped from 
that discreditable state of gross delusion which permits the 
most frivolous pretences and preposterous fictions to pass for 
proofs of monarchical principles and treasonable designs in the 
pure and patriotic bosoms of the sages and heroes of the revo- 
lution, it will so far recover its tone and shake off its disposi- 
tion to be duped, as not to suffer itself to be insulted by the 
miserable sophistries which have so long been current, (in the 
language of Washington,) "to explain away the constitution." 
It is to bring about the latter result which is really important. 
For, as to those "Solomons in council and Samsons in the 
field," who have deserved so much gratitude, and been paid 
with so much reproach, their misfortunes and persecutions 
will only serve to enrich the story of their lives, when they 
shall become the subjects of faithful history and the theme of 
epic song. These will furnish an Odyssey of woes and wander- 
ings to the Iliad of their revolutionary wars. 

"But if on life's uncertain main 

Mishap shall mar thy sail, 
If faithful, wise and brave, in vain, 
Woe, want and exile thou sustain 

Beneath the fickle gale, 
Spend not a sigh on fortune changed." — 

These lines are singularly descriptive of the fate of many of 
them, and of the temper with which they bore it. And if they 
would find, in the bright portions of their lives, coinpensation 
for the dark ones; and in the nobleness of their natures, support 
against the cruelty of their fortunes, it is not for us, who love 
them, to deprecate the latter, which was necessary to the full 
development of the former. For if, according to what Lord 
Bacon calls that "high speech of Seneca, after the manner of 
the stoics," the good things of prosperity be merely desirable, 
while those of adversity are admirable, it is better for the dead, 
whose heritage is fame, to have achieved the latter. And we 
are taught by their example, instead of murmuring at their 
misfortunes, to turn them into blessings, by making them the 
means of lifting our meditations to those high and halcyon 
places of thought and sentiment which are above the storms of 
the world. 



XIX 

But I have digressed from the purpose of this Introduction, 
which was designed to be merely an appropriate vestibule to 
the theatre of controversy which the reader is now to enter. 
That it was forced upon the sons of General Lee, I have heard 
nobody deny, though some have deprecated the acrimony with 
which it was conducted by the author of this work. His reply 
to such objections was, that as the provocation was infinite, 
his severity could not be excessive. Whoever shall make the 
experiment, will find that it is not easy to feel deeply and 
write calmly; nor is it a wholesome state of public sentiment 
or taste which demands a suppression of indignation upon occa- 
sions which ought to excite it. To regret the cause of this 
controversy and some of its effects was permitted to the friends 
and family of General Lee; and is as becomingly expressed in 
the following pages, as I know it was sincerely felt by their 
author, and is now entertained by their editor. But I hope 
there is nothing in this work which will incur the deliberate 
censure of those whom experience of like injuries, or reflection 
upon them, has taught how to appreciate the feelings of a son 
at witnessing an unprovoked outrage upon the memory of his 
father; but that they will rather receive it with that acclaim, 
which I know it was hailed with by some, whom similar 
inflictions made companions in our sufferings. 

"Socii magno clamor e sequuntur 

Dum genitor nati parma frotectus abiret." 

From his companions loud the clamour rose, 
As shielded by the son the father goes. 

Ravensworth, Fairfax CouNxr, Va. 
Jpril 21th, 1839. 



OBSERVATIONS 



ON THE 



WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 



LETTER I. 

I HAVE read, my dear sir, with great regret, in Jefferson's 
*• Writings" (v. 3, p. 330,) the following letter from that gentle- 
man to General Washington; which contains, as I conceive, a 
gross and unprovoked slander on the character of my father, and 
which, as I design to make it the subject of examination, is 
transcribed here without alteration or curtailment. 

TO THE PRESIDENT. 

Monticello, June 19th, 1796. 
"In Bache's Aurora of the 9th instant, which came here by the 
last post, a paper appears which having been confided, as I presume, 
to but few hands, makes it truly wonderful how it should have got 
there. I cannot be satisfied as to my own part, till I relieve my 
mind by declaring, and I attest every thing sacred and honourable 
to the declaration, that it has got there neither through me nor the 
paper confided to me. This has never been from under my own 
lock and key, or out of my own hands; no mortal ever knew from 
me that these questions had been proposed. Perhaps I ought to 
except one person, who possesses all my confidence, as he has pos- 
sessed yours. I do not remember indeed that I communicated it 
even to him. But as I was in the habit of unlimited trust and 
counsel with him, it is possible I may have read it to him, no more: 
for the quire of which it makes a part was never in any hand but 
my own, nor was a word ever copied or taken down from it by any 
body. I take on myself without fear, any divulgation on his part. 
We both know him incapable of it. From myself then, or my paper, 
1 



6 

this publication has never been deiivecl. I have formerly men- 
tioned to you, that from a very early period of my life, I had laid 
it down as a rule of conduct, never to write a word for the public 
papers. From this I have never departed in a single instance; and 
on a late occasion, when all the world seemed to be writing, besides 
a rigid adherence to my own rule, I can say with truth that not a 
line for the press was ever communicated to me by another, except 
a single petition referred for m^'^ correction; which I did not cor- 
rect, however, though the contrary, as I have heard, was said in a 
public place — by one person through error, through malice by an- 
other. I learn that this last has thought it worth his while to try 
to sow tares between you and me, by representing me as still en- 
gaged in thebustleof politics, and in turbulence and intrigue against 
the government. I never believed for a moment that this could make 
any impression on you, or that your knowledge of me would not 
overweigh the slander of an intriguer, dirtily employed in sifting 
the conversations of my table, where alone he could hear of me; 
and seeking to atone for sins against you by sins against another 
who had never done him any other injury than that of declining his 
confidences. Political conversations I really dislike, and therefore 
avoid where I can without affectation. But when urged by others 
I have never conceived that my having been in public life requires 
me to belie my sentiments, or even to conceal them. When I am 
led by conversation to express them, I do it with the same inde- 
pendence here which I have practised everywhere, and which is 
inseparable from my nature. But enough of this miserable tergi- 
versator, who ought indeed either to have been of more truth, or 
less trusted by his country.* 

While on the subject of papers, permit me to ask one from you. 
You remember the difference of opinion between Hamilton and 
Knox on the one part, and myself on the other, on the subject of 
firing on the little Sarah, and that we had exchanged opinions and 
reasons in writing. On your arrival in Philadelphia, I delivered 
you a copy of my reasons, in the presence of Col. Hamilton. On 
our withdrawing he told me he had been so much engaged that 
he had not been able to prepare a copy of his and Gen. Knox's 
for you, and that if I would send you the one he had given me, he 
would replace it in a few days. I immediately sent it to you, wishing 
you should see both sides of the subject together — I often after ap- 
plied to both the gentlemen, but could never obtain another copy — 
I have often thought of asking this one, or a copy of it, back from 
you, but have not before written on subjects of this kind to you. 
Though I do not know that it will ever be of the least importance 
to me, yet one loves to possess arms, though they hope never to 
have occasion for them. They possess my paper in my own hand- 



♦ Note by the Editor. "(Here in the margin of the copy, is written, appa- 
rently at a later date, 'Gen. H. Lee.' ") 



writing. It is just I should possess theirs. The only thing amiss 
is that they should have left me to seek a return of the paper, or a 
copy of it from you. 

I put away this disgusting dish of old fragments, and talk to you 
of my peas and clover. As to the latter article, I have great en- 
couragement from the friendly nature of our soil. I think I have 
had, both the last and present year, as good clover from common 
grounds, which had brought several crops of wheat and corn with- 
out ever having been manured, as I ever saw on the lots around 
Philadelphia. I verily believe that a field of thirty-four acres, 
sowed on wheat, April was twelvemonth, has given me a ton to the 
acre at its first cutting this spring. The stalks extended, measured 
three and a half feet long, very commonly — ^another field, a year 
older, and which yielded as well the last year, has sensibly fallen 
oft* this year. My exhausted fields bring a clover not higli enough 
for hay, but I hope to make seed from it. Such as these, however, 
I shall hereafter put into peas in tiie broadcast, proposing that one 
of my sowings of wheat shall be after two years of clover, and the 
other after two years of peas. I am trying the white boiling pea of 
Europe (the Albany pea) this year, till I can get the hog pea of 
England, which is the most productive pea of all. But the true 
winter vetch is what we want extremely. I have tried this year 
the Caroline drill. It is absolutely perfect. Nothing can be more 
simple, nor perform its office more perfectly for a single row. I 
shall try to make one to sow four rows at a time of wheat or peas, 
at twelve inches distance. I have one of the Scotch threshing ma- 
chines nearly finished. It is copied exactly from a model Mr. 
Pinckney sent me, only that I have put the whole works (except 
the horse wheel,) into a single frame, moveable from one field to 
another on the two axles of a wagon. It will be ready in time for 
the harvest which is coming on, which will give it a full trial. Our 
wheat and rye are generally fine, and the prices talked of bid fair 
to indemnify us for the poor crops of the two last years. 

I take the liberty of putting under your cover a letter to the son 
of the Marquis de la Fayette, not exactly knowing where to direct 
to him. 

With very affectionate compliments to Mrs. Washington, I have 
the honour to be, with great and sincere esteem and respect, dear 
sir, your most obedient and most humble servant, 

Th. JilFFERSON." 

The respect which in common with a great majority of my coun- 
trymen, I was induced to entertain for the cliaracter of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, is now a double source of regret to me, as it enhances the duty 
of defending my father's memory and aggravates the pain of per- 
forming it. To add to this chagrin comes the reflection, that I may 
occasion to the feelings of Mr. Jefferson's relatives, a violence not 
unlike that under which my own are suffering— a violence to which 



8 

I am forced at the sacrifice of long-cherished veneration, and which 
they can forgive only at the expense of a sacred affection. A shock 
of surprise has increased this accumulated mortification. That 
General Lee was politically opposed to Mr. Jefferson, I was well 
aware; but that personal rancour existed on either side, I had not 
the least suspicion. The zeal of the former you will attest, was 
too polished and well -tempered, to carry on its edge the taint of 
abuse or the poison of slander. Careless of political preferment 
himself, he could well endure the elevation of others. And as in 
the party warfare that divided the nation Mr. Jefferson was a more 
successful combatant, 1 supposed he had been at least as tolerant 
an adversary. 

Other considerations strengthened this impression. They had 
both been labourers in a great and successful national struggle. 
They were the common friends of many eminent citizens — such as 
Mr. Madison and Mr. Monroe. In a controversy most painful to 
Mr. Jefferson's feelings, he had been indebted to the delicacy, for- 
bearance, and liberality of Gen. Lee.* How then could I be pre- 
pared for this surviving virulence, this testamentary hatred on his 
part.^ 

Before I examine its intrinsic value, it will be well to sketch its 
external history — as the account of a man's life is often prefaced 
by a description of his person. 

It cannot fail to be observed that while expressing this violent 
abuse of Gen. Lee, in terms so flagrantly unsuitable to the dignity 
of his correspondent, he took care to suppress the mention of his 
name; thus attempting an injury, and withholding at the same time 
all means of its redress. It was hardly possible that Gen. Wash- 
ington should repeat such vague and scurrilous language — and as 
little so, if he did, that Gen. Lee should take to himself its appli- 
cation. "At a later date," we are told, in an hour dedicated to 
the joys of secret malevolence, Mr. Jefferson fixed this floating 
defamation on Gen. Lee; and at a date still later, when death had 
struck with his tremendous dart the subject of this slander, and 
overwhelmed with pious grief hi^ descendants, bequeathed it to 
posterity, as a lasting outrage to their att'ection, and a public stigma 
on his name.t 

Thus the resentment of this philosopher and statesman was ap- 
peased, ne'k^her by the fellowship of patriotism, the remembrance 
of kindness, \}ae lapse of time, nor the solemnity of death. Exhi- 
bited to the world on the summit of his lofty fame, it is beheld in 
three stages of progression, and in as many shades of intensity. It 
first appears a torrent of impetuous passion. It next darkens into 
a stream of solitary and determined malice. And thence descend- 
ing it stops, cold with hatred, and hardened by inveteracy, on the 

* For the truth of this assertion I appeal confidently to Mr. Madison. 
+ Gen. Lee died in March, 1818, eight years before'Mr. Jefferson and eleven 
before this slander appeared. 



9 

modest honours, and the silent sorrows that dwell around a patriot 
soldier's grave. 

As the terms of the oiFensive passage in question, notwithstand- 
ing the greatness of their authority, are as vague as they are indeli- 
cate; present to the mind nothing but a tissue of hearsay aver- 
ments and malignant insinuations, it will be expedient to unfold 
their confusion, and to submit to a fair and careful scrutiny what- 
ever statements as to fact or character can be extracted from them. 

One of these is that Gen Lee, in order to convey improper infor- 
mation to Gen. Washington, had "dirtily intrigued, and had sifted 
the conversations of Mr. Jefferson's table, where alone he could 
hear of him" to obtain materials for his communications. Dismiss- 
ing for a moment the contempt this unworthy accusation inspires, 
let me ask, may it not be as justly retorted on Mr. Jefferson as 
directed against Gen. Lee? How did he learn the subject of Gen. 
Lee's communications either verbal or written to Gen. Washing- 
ton? Was it not as necessary that for this purpose he should 
"dirtily intrigue and sift table conversations" as that Gen. Lee 
should? Was it not even more so? Gen. Washington having 
been a more important personage than Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. 
Jefferson than Gen. Lee, it results from the rule of proportion, that 
remarks made by Mr. Jefferson respecting Gen. Washington, 
would more probably be absorbed into a degree of circulation, than 
any Gen. Lee could make concerning Mr. Jefferson. Besides it 
will be seen that Mr. Jefferson's hostility to Gen. Washington was 
too eager in its spirit and (although he says he could only be heard 
of at table conversations) too indiscriminate in its expression to 
require either industry or intrigue on the part of his friends, to dis- 
cover it, and too directly injurious to Gen. Lee himself to allow 
him to be indifferent to it. 

In the order of collocation, the first allegation of Mr. Jefferson 
is, that Gen. Lee and another person said at a public place that a 
certain petition had been corrected by Mr. Jefferson, and he asserts 
conclusively, that while the other person had made this statement 
through error. Gen. Lee made it from malice. Taking for granted 
the truth of this hearsay affirmation, the admissions of Mr. Jeffer- 
son himself show that a less uncharitable conclusion would have 
been a more logical one. He says the petition was referred to him 
for correction, but takes care to add "which, however, I did not 
correct — " thus evincing a lively apprehension that the fact of the 
reference would naturally lead to the very conclusion which Gen. 
Lee is reproached with having drawn. Apprized of the reference 
of the petition to Mr. Jefferson, and satisfied of his secret hostility 
to Gen. Washington, Gen. Lee, without the least malice or intent 
to slander, might believe and assert, that it had received his cor- 
rection. There was less boldness in inferring the fact of correc- 
tion against Mr. Jeff'erson than in imputing the motive of malice to 
Gen. Lee. Indeed the probability is that Gen. Lee was only 



10 

repeating the assertion of some other person, in whose truth and 
judgment he confided, as his residence was remote from that of 
Mr. Jefferson. And it is equally probable, (though the remark 
does not properly belong to this stage of the observations) that as 
the petition was intended to militate against the popularity and the 
administration of the President, Mr. Jefferson's not correcting it — 
suft'ering it to go forth with all its invective and mis-statement to 
the public, was the most unfriendly position in regard to Gen. 
Washington that, on the occasion, he could have assumed. 

These considerations show that he had no ground of reason to 
distinguish odiously between the assertion of Gen. Lee and that of 
the other "person;" and that the utmost impropriety of which Gen- 
Lee could be charged, was with having adopted a natural, but 
erroneous inference — or rather with having confided in information 
which, however probable, was not in fact true. Could this degree 
of credulity justify the gross invective and injurious imputations of 
Mr. Jefferson? Would it not have been more reasonable as well 
as more decorous to observe that Gen. Lee was mistaken, that he 
had been led into error? Allowing both that Mr. Jefferson did not 
correct the petition, and that Gen. Lee had asserted that he did, 
was he the first or the second man who committed a similar error, 
or who might not be charged with equal credulity? Adam Smith, 
whose authority is as high in the philosophy of morals as of politics, 
says, "the man scarce lives who is not more credulous than he 
ought to be, and who does not upon many occasions, give credit to 
tales, which not only turn out to be perfectly false, but which a 
very moderate degree of reflection and attention might have taught 
him, could not very well be true."* This citation is not required 
to prove the innocence of Gen. Lee, but may help to manifest the 
injustice of Mr. Jefferson. 

1 do not mean to question the fact of which Mr. Jefferson next 
complains, viz: Gen. Lee's having advised Gen. Washington, that 
while he was confiding in Mr. Jefferson's apparent friendship the 
latter was engaged in disseminating misrepresentations of his public 
character, in instigating opposition to his measures, and exciting 
distrust of his intentions — so far from it, to use the slang of an at- 

[* If one's own imperfections should make him tolerant of those of others, no 
one ought to have forgiven credulity more readily than Mr. Jefferson. His 
belief "that one thousand miles up the Missouri there was a salt mountain, 
80 miles long and 45 wide, composed of solid rock salt, without any trees or 
even shrubs upon it," is mentioned by Mr. Tucker (Vol. II. p. 160,) as having 
long furnished a subject of ridicule. At page 43 of the volume just cited, a 
more objectionable instance of his credulity is quoted, and indeed so gross as 
to draw from Mr. Tucker the admission, "that if Mr. Jefferson experienced 
the most virulent hatred, and the most unfounded calumny of his adversaries, 
he was not far behind them in credulity and injustice, and that he did not hesi- 
tate to attribute to them purposes which no honest mind could form, and no 
rational mind would attempt." This is much for a partial biographer to ad- 
mit; but the reader of Mr. Jefferson's lines will be inclined to think that he 
was somewhat ahead of his adversaries both in credulity and injustice.] 



11 

toiney, I admit the diarge and plead the truth in justification of it. 
This I am led to do, less from a disposition to confide in the state- 
ments of Mr. Jefterson, than from an assurance that Gen. Lee would 
never see with indifference the father of his country and his own 
friend made the sport of insincere professions and the victim of 
dishonest practices. And with a view of reducing this charge to 
terms more definite than its author has thought fit to employ, I 
refer you to an extract of Gen. Washington's reply to this letter 
of Mr. Jefterson as it is found in Marshall. 

"If I had entertained any suspicion before, that the queries 
which have been published in Bache's paper proceeded from you, 
the assurances you have given of the contrary would have removed 
them — but the truth is, 1 harboured none. 1 am at no loss to con- 
jecture from what source they flowed, through what channel they 
were conveyed, nor for what purpose they and similar publications 
appear. — As you have mentioned* the subject yourself, it would 
not be frank, candid, or friendly to conceal, that your conduct has 
been represented as derogating from that opinion I conceived you 
entertained of me; that to your particular friends and connexions 
you have described, and they have denounced me, as a person un- 
der a dangerous influence, and that, if I would listen more to some 
other opinions, all would be well. My answer invariably has been, 
that I had never discovered any thingin the conduct of Mr. Jeffer- 
son to raise suspicions in my mind of his sincerity; that if he would 
retrace my public conduct while he was in the administration, 
abundant proofs would occur to him that truth and right decisions 
were the sole objects of my pursuit: that there were as many in- 
stances within his own knowledge of my having decided against as 
in favour of the person evidently alluded to: and moreover, that 
I was no believer in the infallibility of the politics or measures of 
any man living. In short, that I was no party man myself, and 
that the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile 
them. To this I may add, and very truly, that until the last year 
or two, I had no conception that parties would, or even could go 
the lengths I have been witness to; nor did I believe until lately, 
that it was within the bounds of probability — hardly within those 
of possibility, that while I was using my utmost exertions to esta- 
blish a national character of our own, independent as far as our ob- 
ligations and justice would permit, of every nation of the earth; 
and wished by steering a steady course, to preserve this country 
from the horrors of a desolating war, I should be accused of being 
the enemy of one nation, and subject to the influence of another; 
and to prove it, that every act of my administration would be tor- 
tured, and the grossest and most invidious misrepresentations of 

♦ Vol. V. p. 674. Here Marshall, who does not quote the letter of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, says — ''In the same letter" (that is the letter of the 19th June, 1796, abus- 
ing Gen. Lee,) "Mr. Jefferson had stated his total abstraction from party 
questions." 



12 

them be made, bj giving one side only of the subject, and tliat too 
in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be ap- 
plied to a Nero, to a notorious defaulter — or even to a common 
pick-pocket. But enough of this — I have already gone further in 
the expression of my feelings than I intended." 

The point thus arising for inquiry, being made by the question 
whether Gen. Lee's communications to Gen. Washington were 
true or false, it is obviously necessary antecedently to determine 
what they were. Mr. JeiFerson neither specifies his acts nor re- 
peats his language. He asserts, on hearsay authority, that he "had 
tried to sow tares" between him and Gen. Washington "by repre- 
senting him as still engaged in the bustle of politics, and in turbu- 
lence and intrigue against the government." These expressions 
convey nothing like distinct information, and it is impossible to 
conceive that in warning Gen. Washington of the danger of confi- 
dence in Mr. Jefferson, Gen. Lee should not have expressed him- 
self more specifically, should not have drawn the attention of Gen. 
Washington to instances in that gentleman's practices or language. 
Accordingly, if we refer to Gen. Washington's reply to this part 
of Mr. Jefferson's letter, we shall discover with sufficient preci- 
sion not only what Gen. Lee's information was, but that it consist- 
ed of definite and substantial statements. In that letter it is ob- 
served: "As you have mentioned the subject yourself, it would 
not be frank, candid, or friendly, to conceal, that your conduct 
has been represented as derogating from that opinion I conceived 
you entertained of me; that to your particular friends and connex- 
ions you have described, and they have denounced me, as a person 
under a dangerous influence, and that if I would listen tnore to 
some other opinions all would be well." 

As no man since Mr. Jefferson's death will doubt the truth of 
Gen. Washington's solemn declarations upon matters of fact, it 
may be safely assumed that this was the substance of Gen. Lee's 
information to him. He may be supposed to have said: "I have 
good reason to believe that Mr. Jeffersori's conduct toivards you 
does not correspond with his professions — that he represents you as 
guided implicitly by the counsels of Hamilton, and thereby operated 
on by a dangerous bias in favour of Great Britain — and gives out 
that if you would listen more to some other opinions all would yet 
be welV Now although this is a fair version of Gen. Washing- 
ton's account of the information he received, I have no fear of 
proving that so far from overstepping the truth, it falls very far 
short of it. 

In the mean time it will not be impertinent to remark the con- 
trast between the clearness and sobriety of Gen. Lee's communi- 
cation,* and the obscurity and intemperance of Mr. Jefferson's 

[* To show these qualities more distinctly in, at least, the first communica- 
tion on this subject from Gen. Lee to Gen. Washington, and the mild and pro- 
per spirit in which it was made, the reader's attention is requested to the 



13 

reprobation of it. Without pretending to know or pausing to in- 
quire what in reality had been alleged against him — which any 
one conscious of fair dealing would have done, for the purpose 

following letter, extracted from Vol. X. p. 560, of "The Writings of Wash- 
ington, by Sparks." 

HENRY LEE TO PRESIDENT WASHINGTON. 

Richmond, 17 August, 1794. 

My dear Sir — Your late orders for a detachment of militia, and your pro- 
clamation, give birth to a variety of sensations and opinions. All good citizens 
deplore the events, which have produced this conduct on your part, and feel 
but one determination to maintain inviolate our happy government at the risk 
of their lives and fortunes. There are some among us, from the influence of 
party spirit and from their own ambitious views, who rejoice in national ad- 
versity, and gladden when they hear of governmental embarrassments. I am 
gratified in telling you, that the great body of this State will exert themselves 
in whatever way you may direct, to the utmost of their power; and I am per- 
suaded that you may count with certainty on their zeal and determination. 
The awful occasion demands united etforts, and I beg leave to offer to you my 
services in any way or station you may deem them proper. 

When I saw you in Philadelphia, I had many conversations with you re- 
specting Mr. Henry, and since my return I have talked very freely and confi- 
dentially with that gentleman. I plainly perceive, that he has credited some 
information, which he has received (from whom I know not), which induces 
him to believe that you consider him a factious, seditious character, and that 
you expressed yourself to this effect on your return from South Carolina, in 
your journey through this State, as well as elsewhere. Assured in my own 
mind, that his opinions are groundless, I have uniformly combated them, and 
lament that my endeavours have been unavailing. He seems to be deeply 
and sorely atfected. It is very much to be regretted; for he is a man of posi- 
tive virtue as well as of transcendent talents; and, were it not for his feelings 
above expressed, I verily believe he would be found among the most active 
supporters of your administration. Excuse me for mentioning this matter to 
you. I have long wished to do it, in the hope that it will lead to a refutation 
of the sentiments entertained by Mr. Henry. 

A very respectable gentleman told me the other day, that he was at Mr. 
Jefferson's, and, among inquiries which he made of that gentleman, he asked, 
if it were possible that you had attached yourself to Great Britain, and if it 
could be true that you were governed by British influence, as was reported by 
many. He was answered in the following words: "That there was no danger 
of your being biassed by considerations of that sort, so long as you were in- 
fluenced by the wise advisers, or advice, which you at present had." I request- 
ed him to reflect, and reconsider, and to repeat again the answer. He did so, 
and adhered to every word. Now, as the conversation astonished me, and is 
inexplicable to my mind, as well as derogatory to your character, I consider it 
would be unworthy in me to withhold the communication from you. To no 
other person will it ever be made. 

Wishing you every happiness, I am yours, &c. 

Henry Lee. 

General Washington's reply will be found at page 428 of the volume just 
cited, from which it will be necessary to insert only the following paragraph. 

"With respect to the words said to have been uttered by Mr. Jefferson, they 
would be enigmatical to those who are acquainted with the characters about 
me, unless supposed to be spoken ironically; and in that case they are too in- 
jurious to me, and have too little foundation in truth to be ascribed to him. 
There could not be the trace of doubt on his mind of predilection in mine 
2 



14 

of admitting it if true, or denying it if false— he denounces it en 
masse as a contemptible slander^ boldly appeals to the unsuspect- 
ing temper of the General in contradiction of it; ridicules and vili- 
fies, without mentioning his name, the character of its author; thus 
anxiously endeavouring, by covering his statements with discredit, 
to conceal them from examination: with one hand casting tilth on 
the reputation of Gen. Lee, and throwing dust with the other in 
the eyes of Gen. Washington. 

With this spiteful impatience at the approach of truth, the tumult 
and licentiousness of his language, which, considering his own emi- 
nence, the standing of Gen. Lee, and the character of Gen. Wash- 
ington — must excite the surprise of every reader — exactly corre- 
spond. Applying to it that process of reasoning by which moral 
eflfects are traced to their causes, you will find, that instead of 
proving a sense of injustice, it betrays an apprehension of injury — 
a consciousness that any disclosures of his conduct leading to an 
investigation of his proceedings in this respect, might expose him 
to the reproaches and indignation of Gen. Washington; whose open 
denunciation at that time, he knew would be fatal to his popularity, 
and whose wrath he feelingly declares (Vol. V. p. 236,) when once 
aroused, was "most tremendous." 

Nor are these distrustful impressions with regard to this passage, 
weakened by a closer analysis of its terms. He alleges that Gen. 
Lee "had tried to sow tares between him and Gen. Washington by 
representing him as still engaged in the bustle of politics and in 
turbulence and intrigue against the government." The phrase "to 
sow tares" is a scriptural one, and in order to measure its meaning 
here, it must be compared with its original employment. In the 
Gospel of St. Matthew, xiii. 24, our Saviour thus expresses him- 
self — "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed 
good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy came and 
sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way." Mr. Jetterson 
intended therefore to convey this proposition to Gen. Washing- 
ton's mind. While sentiments of mutual confidence and respect 
subsisted betioeen us, pure as the good seed ivhich a man sows in 
his field; Gen. Lee, a secret ene^ny to me if not to you, came and 
endeavoured to destroy it by false and malicious aspersions, which 
are as noxious and as unworthy of your attention as the tares that 
spring up in ivheat are of the husbandman's care. 

The next phrase is unfortunate in saying that Gen. Lee repre- 

towards Great Britain or her politics, unless, which I do not believe, he has 
set me down as one of the most deceitful and uncandid men living; because, 
not only in private conversations between ourselves on this subject, but in 
many meetings with the confidential servants of the public, he has heard me 
often, when occasions presented themselves, express very different sentiments, 
with an energy that could not be mistaken by any one present." 

Yet it will appear in the sequel that Mr. Jefferson did habitually charge 
Gen. Washington with British predilections; with how little foundation is 
evident from his generous disbelief of such conduct.] 



15 

sented him as engaged in "the bustle of politics," — for that is the 
very reverse of what Gen. Lee did say, and of what will be proved 
to have been the fact. Gen. Lee said his misrepresentations were 
addressed to his "particular friends and connexions" — were secret, 
and therefore the more dangerous and the more detestable. Had 
he been engaged in the "bustle of politics," there would have been 
neither room for his concealment, nor need for Gen. Lee's intelli- 
gence. The expression too, "engaged in turbulence and intrigue 
against the government," — betrays equal inattention to facts, and 
the same aversion that has been already noticed to a candid expla- 
nation of his conduct. It is impossible to conceive that a person 
could be at once turbulent and intriguing in his opposition. It 
would be as rational to affirm that he was at the same time loud 
and silent — or active and still — or honest and dislionest. Gen. Lee 
could have had no cause to fall into such confusion of thought, or 
to employ such absurdity of language. And Mr. Jefferson in do- 
ing so shows that he was more intent upon purposes of resentment 
and fraud than upon the dictates of truth and reason. The entire 
passage is indeed a striking Example of one of those "miscarriages" 
— to which a favourite author of Mr. Jefferson, Locke, says the 
mind is subject, when under the influence of improper motives. 
"And these, one may observe, commonly content themselves with 
words which have no distinct ideas to them, though in other mat- 
.ters that they come with an unbiassed indifferency to, they want 
not abilities to talk and hear reason,* &c." 

With respect to the question, whether the intelligence thus ad- 
mitted to have been communicated by Gen. Lee to Gen. fVashing- 
ton, was true or false; it is evident that its decision must have a 
very different effect upon the antagonist reputations of Mr. Jeffer- 
son and Gen. Lee. Were it made to appear that Mr. Jeff'erson 
never did "describe Gen. Washington to his particular friends and 
connexions as a person under a dangerous influence," as too much 
guided by the counsels of Hamilton, and subject thereby to an im- 
proper bias in favour of Great Britian, it would by no means fol- 
low that Gen. Lee was guilty of untruth or "was wanting in vera- 
city. He would still be entitled to the benefit of his general 
character in support of the integrity of his motives, and of the jus- 
tice of limiting the decision against him to the venial fact, of hav- 
ing repeated what was false because he believed it to be true. On 
the other hand, should it be demonstrated that his information 
respecting the late prime minister and still avowed friend of Gen. 
Washington, was true— that Mr. Jefferson, while denouncing it to 
him as "the slander of a dirty intriguer," while amusing him by 
the show of esteem and friendship, by professing a refined aversion 
to politics, and an exclusive devotion to rural labours and the 
charms of philosophy; was actually employed and had been busily 

* Essay on the Conduct of the Understanding. Sec. .3. 



16 

engaged, from a period not long subsequent to his retirement from 
the office of Secretary of State, in disparaging his public character, 
and misrepresenting his official measures; in endeavouring through- 
out the circle of his prominent acquaintances by the artful adapta- 
tion of suitable excitements to dissipate confidence, to stimulate 
hostility, to exasperate discontent, and to provoke suspicion, 
wherever these dispositions towards his administration appeared or 
were suspected; a deliberate falsehood must be proved against 
Mr. Jeft'erson, attended by the aggravating circumstances of injus- 
tice to Gen. Lee, and hypocrisy and ingratitude to Gen. Washing- 
ton. 

As this is to be the alternative issue of the question — as on one 
side, it cannot dishonour the name of Gen. Lee, and on the other 
may bring a stain on the memory of Mr. JeiFerson, I may be sup- 
posed to approach it with less diffidence as a son than as a citizen. 
,To withdraw myself from among the admirers of this distinguished 
man, and take a station in the ranks of those who doubt the justice 
of his popularity, and the solidity of his fame, is a change of posi- 
tion, which however just and necessary, you may suppose to be in- 
convenient, as little desired as premeditated, one which I am 
forced to by causes that place me in a defensive attitude, which 
you must admit are imperative, and which so far from being of my 
creation, owe their unwelcome existence to the pertinacious voli- 
tion and injurious spirit of Mr. Jeft'erson himself. 

In conducting the controversy thus imposed on me, it will occur 
to your reflection, that it is both my right and my duty, as the re- 
presentative of my father, to assume that line of defence and to 
employ those means of vindication, which he himself, if living, 
would have been entitled to adopt. It will likewise appear that 
inasmuch as the passage, in which Mr. Jefferson traduced and re- 
proached him, contains both a contradiction of his assertions and 
an attack upon his character, he might, without transgressing the 
limits of moderation or indulging feelings of revenge, have endea- 
voured to establish from circumstances in Mr. Jefferson's conduct, 
the truth of his own asseitions, and the absence of that virtue in 
the imputations of liis adversary. This course of proceeding, it is 
farther evident, will lead to the examination of the sincerity of 
Mr. Jefferson's professions as a friend to Gen. Washington, the 
soundness of his pretensions as an enlightened patriot, and the 
justice of his reputation as an upright statesman — to the inquiry 
whether his reasonings were logical, his opinions just, his state- 
ments true, or his motives honourable. This operation will natu- 
rally be the more exigent and rigorous from the lofty manner in 
which the volumes that contain his slander of Gen. Lee are given 
to the world, as displaying "genius, learning, philosophic inspira- 
tion, generous devotion to virtue, and love of country," — which 
having a tendency to give weight to his attack, justly exposes him 



17 

to the full effect of the lex talionis, the law of moral re -action as 
applied to that offence. 

From the stations he filled, the affairs with which he was con- 
versant, the important measures he directed, and the high reputa- 
tion he acquired, the task thus proposed is by no means a light 
one? suitable rather to the patient and ambitious labours of a histo- 
rian, than to the unpretending and reluctant essay of an advocate. 

Yet all unequal and unprepared as I am for its full accomplish- 
ment, I feel conscious of no apprehension that as far as the object 
of my father's vindication is involved, T. shall fail in effecting it. 

In order to prove that his information to Gen. Washington was 
not only true, but such as was to be expected from a faithful friend 
and a man of honour, it will only be necessary to refer to the 
"Writings" of Mr. Jefferson. Happily they contain the antidote 
to their own poison. From them it appears that upon Gen. Wash- 
ington's first election to the Presidency, he selected Mr. Jefferson 
for the chief office of his Cabinet; a distinction, the honour of 
which was enhanced by expressions of the greatest kindness. On 
that occasion, he thus wrote to Mr. Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 144.) 

"New York, October ISth, 1789. 

"Sir, — In the selection of characters to fill the important oflices of 
government in the United States, I was naturally led to contem- 
plate the talents and dispositions I knew you to possess, and enter- 
tain for the service of your country; and without being able to 
consult your inclinations, or to derive any knowledge of your in- 
tention from your letters, either to myself or to any other of your 
friends, I was determined, as well by motives of private regard, as 
a conviction of public propriety, to nominate you for the depart- 
ment of state." 

If the language of this letter breathes confidence and regard, 
that in which it was answered was not less expressive of courtly 
homage, and of personal respect and attachment. After deprecat- 
ing the disproportion between the duties of the office and his own 
qualifications, he tells the President, (Vol. III. p. 46,) "My chief 
comfort will be to work under your eye, my only shelter the 
authority of your name, and the wisdom of measures to be dictated 
by you, and implicitly executed by me. As early as possible in 
March, I shall have the honour of waiting on you in New York. 
In the mean time, I have that of tendering you the homage of those 
sentiments of respectful attachment with which I am," &c. &c. 

Thus covered with the mantle of honour and office, and glowing 
with the blushes of modesty and gratitude, Mr. Jefferson entered 
the department of State, in March, 1790; and having discharged 
its duties with more than common ability until December 1793, 
voluntarily retired from it, against the earnest and repeated in- 
stances of Gen. Washington. The force of these, it is said, he 
was able to resist, principally by motives arising out of a decided 



18 

preference for the "pursuits of private life," (Vol. IV. p. 469,) 
and an "excessive repugnance to public life," (p. 492,) motives 
which were so strong and steady, that although the President com- 
plained (p. 492,) of being "deserted by those on whose aid he had 
counted," and entreated (p. 494,) that he "would only stay in till 
the end of another quarter," the philosophic and eremitical secre- 
tary, disgusted with "the bustle of politics," and impatient of the 
trammels of office, could not give his consent.* 

From his own account it seems (pp. 484, 501,) that throughout 
this period he enjoyed in an equal degree with Hamilton the confi- 
dence and favour of the President, that he was consulted as to the 
selection of his successor, (p. 493,) that for that station, Mr. Madi- 
son was the President's first choice, but he had expressed himself 
too averse to public office, to admit a hope of his accepting it; and 
that although this official separation took place, Mr. Jefferson car- 
ried with him into retirement the same high opinion of "his talents 
and disposition to serve his country," and the same degree of "pri- 
vate regard" and public confidence, which had prompted Gen. 
Washington to appoint him. 

How were these sentiments of unabated friendship, of confiding 
attachment returned? In December, 1794, a single twelvemonth 
after his resignation, at a time when no decrease of regard or 
esteem had taken place, or been suspected on the part of Gen. 
Wasliington — when the father of his country, as he had told the 
secretary (Vol. IV. p. 492,) had a right to count on his aid, had a 
right to expect not only his public, but his personal support, his 
encouragement in the prosecution of right measures, his advice 
when in danger of adopting wrong ones; a just, if not a favourable 
view of his motives, and a fair, if not an indulgent account of his 
mistakes, Mr. Jefferson, after writing to the President in May, 
1794, (Vol. III. p. 306,) "but 1 cherish tranquillity too much to 
suffer political things to enter my mind at all;" and to the Secre- 
tary of State, his successor, in September of the same year, "It is 
a great pleasure to me to retain the esteem and approbation of the 
President, and this forms the only ground of any reluctance at be- 
ing unable to comply with every wish of his. Pray convey these 
sentiments and a thousand more tO him which my situation does 
not permit me to go into," took occasion to make the following re- 
marks in a letter to Mr. Madison. 

"The denunciation of the Democratic Societies is one of the 
extraordinary acts of boldness of which we have seen so many from 
the faction of monocrats. It is wonderful indeed, that the Presi- 
dent should have permitted himself to be the organ of such an 
attack on the freedom of discussion, the freedom of writing, print- 

[* There is a slight inaccuracy here. Though Mr. Jefferson did not con- 
sent, at the interview referred to in the text, to remain in office until the end 
of the year, he relented upon further reflection, and actually served until thai 
time. J 



19 

ing and publishing. It must be a matter of rare curiosity to get at 
the modifications of these rights proposed by them, and to see what 
line their ingenuity would draw, between democratical societies 
whose avowed object is the nourishment of the republican princi- 
ples of our constitution, and the society of the Cincinnati, a self- 
created one; carving out for itself hereditary distinctions, lower- 
ing over our Constitution eternally, meeting together in all parts 
of the Union, periodically, with closed doors, accumulating a capi- 
tal in their separate treasury, corresponding secretly, and regu- 
larly, and of which society, the very persons denouncing the de- 
mocrats, are themselves the fathers, founders, and high officers. 
Their sight must be perfectly dazzled by the glittering of crowns 
and coronets, not to see the extravagance of the proposition to 
suppress the friends of general freedom, while those who wish to 
confine that freedom to the few, are permitted to go on in their 
principles and practices. I here put out of sight the persons whose 
misbehaviour has been taken advantage of, to slander the friends 
of popular rights; and I am happy to observe, that as far as the 
circle of my observation and information extends, every body has 
lost sight of them, and views the abstract attempt on their natural 
and constitutional rights in all its nakedness. 1 have never heard, 
or heard of, a single expression or opinion which did not condemn 
it as an inexcusable aggression. And with respect to the transac- 
tions against the excise law, it appears to me that you are all swept 
away in the torrent of governmental opinions, or that we do not 
know what those transactions have been. We know of none 
which, according to the definitions of the law, have been any thing 
more than riotous. There was indeed a meeting to consult about 
a separation. But to consult on a question does not amount to a 
determination of that question in the affirmative, still less to the 
acting on such a determination; but we shall see, I suppose, what 
the court lawyers, and courtly judges, and would-be ambassadors, 
will make of it. The excise law is an infernal one. The first 
error was to admit it by the constitution; the second, to act on that 
admission, the third and last will be, to make it the instrument of 
dismembering the union, and setting us all afloat to choose what 
part of it we will adhere to. The information of our militia re- 
turned from the westward, is uniform, that though the people 
there let them pass quietly, they were objects of their laughter, 
not of their fear; that one thousand men could have cut oft' their 
whole force in a thousand places in the Alleghany; that their de- 
testation of the excise law is universal, and has now associated to 
it, a detestation of the government; and that separation, which, 
perhaps, was a very distant and problematical event, is now near 
and certain, and determined in the mind of every man. I expected 
to have seen some justification of arming one part of the society 
against another; of declaring a civil war the moment before the 
meeting of that body which has the sole right of declaring war; of 



20 

being so patient of the kicks and scoffs of our enemies, and rising 
at a feather against our friends; of adding a million to the public 
debt and deriding us with recommendations to pay it if we can, 
&c. &c. But the part of the speech that was to be taken as a justi- 
fication of the armament, reminded me of parson Saunders' de- 
monstration, why minus into minus makes plus. After a parcel 
of shreds of stuff" from ^sop's Fables, and Tom Thumb, he jumps 
all at once into his ergo, minus multiplied into minus makes plus. 
Just so the fifteen thousand men enter after the fables in the speech. 
However, the time is coming when we shall fetch up the lee way 
of our vessel. The changes in your house,* I see are going on for 
the better, and even the Augean herd over your heads are slowly 
purging off' their impurities. Hold on then, my dear friend, that 
we may not shipwreck in the meanwhile. I do not see in the minds 
of those with whom I converse, a greater affliction than the fear of 
your retirement; but this must not be, unless to a more splendid 
and a more efficacious post. There I should rejoice to see you; I 
hope I may say, I shall rejoice to see you. I have long had much 
in my mind to say to you on that subject, but double delicacies 
have kept me silent. I ought perhaps to say, while I would not 
give up mv own retirement for the empire of the universe, how I 
can justify wishing one whose happiness I have so much at heart 
as yours, to take the front of the battle which is fighting for my 
security. This would be easy enough to be done, but not at the 
heel of a lengthy epistle." Here occurs a hiatus, as if part of the 
letter was suppressed by the editor, and it concludes, "Present me 
respectfully to Mrs. Madison, and pray her to keep you where you 
are, for her own satisfaction and the public good, and accept," &c. 
&c. 

To exhibit thoroughly the meaning of this letter; to take a chart 
of its misrepresentations; to sound the depths of its detraction, and 
point out the shallows of its duplicity; to mark the currents of in- 
justice, the recesses of guile, and the points of self-interest with 
which it abounds, it will be necessary to recur to the political par- 
ties, which at the time it was written, prevailed in the United 
States. This shall be done in a letter by the next packet. 

* Mr. Madison was then a member of the House of Representatives, and 
Congress was then in session. 



21 



LETTER II. 

In going back to the parties of 1794, you must be aware that in 
recalling old and intricate matters to your memory, instead of 
courting your attention by bold or novel subjects, I may well prove 
to be tedious where I earnestly labour to be brief. But this in- 
convenience, inherent in the nature of my undertaking, must be 
incurrred in order to set in a suitable light the remarks I have to 
make upon this memorable letter to Mr. Madison. So the painter 
who portrays one of our naval victories, is obliged to detach his 
pencil from the principal objects, in order to labour on the reflect- 
ing concomitants, the waves, the clouds, and the sky. 

These parties then took their origin, as may be supposed, in the 
nature of man and in the character of our institutions, and were 
modified in their progress by the policy of foreign states, by cir- 
cumstances in our domestic situation, and by the complexion of 
individual ambition. In reference to their first cause, the war of 
the revolution having divided our principal citizens into men of 
the sword, and men of the pen,»these, when it was concluded, re- 
tained the temper of mind and habits of thinking, with respect to 
public affairs, which the part they had respectively borne in its 
events, naturally engendered. 

The military class, by whose swords and hardships the indepen- 
dence of the country had been established, had pursued that object 
with an ardour and constancy proportioned to its magnitude and 
difficulty. Through the long series of dangers which they braved, 
of obstacles they encountered, of vexations they submitted to, and 
privations they endured, sustained by the dignity of a sacred cause, 
and animated by the example of their immortal leader, their zeal 
grew more determined and their patriotism warmer; as the breath 
of the Olympic horses was said to take fire, and the chariot wheels 
to kindle, in proportion as they neared the goal. And these ardent 
patriots, indefatigable in the career of public duty, having finished 
the work of our national deliverance, pressed forward to the no 
less arduous task of confirming our civil liberty. 

Their experience had taught them to regret that the patriotism 
and resources of the nation were not subjected to the management 
of a regular and efficient authority, and to apprehend that as soon 
as peace should have removed the necessities of war and the weight 
of military command, the union of the states would be broken into 
fragments, and the power of the nation reduced to insignificance. 
They were, therefore, the eager advocates of a firm confederation, 
and of a general government with powers sufficient to maintain the 
peace, and provide for the defence of the country, and to discharge 



22 

the various obligations at home and abroad, incident to the station 
in the sisterhood ot nations, which America, the fairest and the 
youngest, had just assumed. 

* The men of the pen, on the contrary, were disposed to insist 
on the danger of any concession of power, either from the fund 
belonging to the States, or the mass inherent in the citizens. 
They looked witii jealousy on military authoiity, and on the habits 
of command, with which those who had borne it were supposed to 
be impressed. They questioned the prudence of consulting about 
a stronger government, and of risking on the sea of debate any 
portion of that freedom we had just vindicated; and they doubted 
the force of those exigencies which were said to recommend a fun- 
damental change of existing institutions. 

As their labours, moreover, had been confined to closets of study 
and halls of deliberation, exempt from the danger and unattended 
by the glory of war, they were sensible of appearing before the 
public as vanquished competitors for fame, and unequal candidates 
for popularity. Towards the military men, therefore, they felt 
both the opposition of opinion, and the rivalship of interest — were 
inclined but dubiously to the creation of a federal government, and 
when its establishment was resolved on, advocates generally for 
the least possible delegation of power to it; a sentiment conforma- 
ble to their general theory, and agreeable to the jealousy with 
which they regarded the probable ascendency of their rivals. 

Out of this salutary conflict of opinions and feelings, of doubt 
and conviction, amongst its framers, the federal constitution under 
which we have continued to flourish, arose — the oft'spring of anxious 
deliberation, of sharpened discussion, of various interests, of mu- 
tual concession, and of common necessity among the States, with 
features as dimly anticipated by its authors as those of her first- 
born infant by a mother's hopes. 

"TautBe molis erat Romanam condere gentem." 

An analysis of this instrument is not called for. — It will be suffi- 
cient to observe that besides the co-ordinate distribution of power 
into legislative, executive, and judicial departments, it contained 
an express division of it, into that undefined portion which was 
reserved by the several States, and their respective citizens, and 
that limited one which was delegated to the federal head — that it 
provided for its own amendment, and as far as human wisdom can 
reach, for its own perpetuity. 

[* Mr. Tucker, himself a man of the pen, mentions among the causes of 
resistance to the formation of the constitution, "a fear with some individuals 
that their personal consequence would be lessened, when the higher attributes 
of sovereignty should be transferred from the separate states to a national 
government. They seemed to feel the force of the remark made by James I. 
to induce his nobles to remain in the country in preference to coming to the 
metropolis, that on their estates they were like great ships in a river, while in 
London they were the same ships at sea." — Life of Jefferson, Vol. I. page 309.] 



23 

The contrariety of sentiments that had attended its formation, 
followed upon every occasion of its interpretation, and in a short 
time after the commencement of its administration, differences in 
the construction of its provisions, as they were elicited by the dis- 
cussion and execution of legislative measures, became matured into 
the consistency of organized parties. To confirm them, came op- 
posing views of expediency and justice as to foregn relations, and 
domestic concerns — the influence of the French revolution — the 
effect of disputes with England — and the discordant interest of 
those who possessed, and of those who aspired to, power. 

The denominations of these parties were as various as the stages 
they passed through, and were descriptive sometimes of their re- 
spective opinions, and at others expressive of the temper in which 
they had been invented and applied. Thus when they divided upon 
the adoption of the constitution, its supporters were c&Wed federal- 
ists, and its opposers anti-federalists.* When they differed as to 
the propriety of maintaining neutrality between France and Eng- 
land, and of paying the national debt, those who defended these 
measures of Washington's administration were stigmatised as 
Aristocrats, while their antagonists were termed Democrats. Final- 
ly, to those who persevered in approving the principles on which 
Washington had conducted the government, was restored the ap- 
pellation of federalists; while the party who hailed the rising popu- 

[* It shows how curiously and quickly party denominations are changed, to 
know that in the discussions of the convention which formed the constitution, 
"those who opposed the system were there considered and styled the federal 
party, those who advocated it, the anti-federal. See Luther Martin's Speech 
to the Legislature of Maryland, p. 42-3. 

Indeed the reader of the only sketches of the debates of the convention which 
formed the constitution, which have yet appeared, (those furnished by Judge 
Yates,) will be surprised to find into what a struggle for power they resolved 
themselves. The large slates were then the greatest enemies of state import- 
ance, and advocated the democratic principle, that numbers should give power. 
"Will a regard to state rights, (exclaimed Judge Wilson, of Pennsylvania. See 
Secret Debates, page 191,) justify the sacrifice of the rights of men? Weight 
and 'numbers form the only true principle — every other is local, confined, and 
imaginary." Nor was Mr. Madison behind this orator in zeal in the same 
cause. He says, (page 184,) " The states never possessed the esse?itial rights of 
sovereignty. These were always vested in congress. Their voting as states in 
congress is no evidence of sovereignty. The state of Maryland voted by coun- 
ties; did this make the counties sovereign? The states, at present, are only 
great corporations, having the power of making by-laws, and these are effec- 
tual only if they are not contradictory to the general confederation. The states 
ought to be placed under the control of the general government, at least as 
much so as they formerly were under the king and British parliament." 

Mr. Gerry from Massachusetts, then the third state in importance, echoes 
these sentiments. He says, (page 188,) "It appears lo me the states never were 
independent — they had only corporate rights. Confederations are a mongrel 
kind of government, and the world does not afl^ord a precedent to go by. Aris- 
tocracy is the worst kind of government, and I would soon«r submit to a mo- 
narchy. We must have a system that will execute itself." 

The mongrel confederations here objected to were of the kind under which 
we live. The aristocracy reprobated, was the government which the smaller 



24 

larity of Mr. Jefferson as the probable means of rescuing our con- 
stitution from the hands of a faction intent on corrupting their 
principles and on introducing monarchy, called themselves repub- 
licans. 

This classification, though good, as a general description, is liable 
of course to exceptions — which, however, are not at variance with 
its spirit. The temper, the interest, or the connexion of some 
among the non-combatant class, placed them either momentarily or 
permanently in the federal ranks. Thus Mr. Jay, who was per- 
sonally attached to Gen. Washington, had been secretary of foreign 
affairs under the old confederation, where he felt in their full force, 
the dangers growing out of its insufficiency — and in the organiza- 
tion of the new government had been placed at the head of the ju- 
diciary — was a steady adherent of the federal party. Thus Patrick 
Henry, who had been their most formidable adversary in regard to 
the adoption of the constitution, gave his support to them in the 
administration of Gen. Washington, from a patriotic desire to have 
the government that had been agreed on, fairly and beneficially 
conducted. While Mr. Madison, who opposed in congress almost 
every important step which Gen. Washington took in administer- 
ing the government, had been among the most zealous of those 
statesmen who assisted in its formation, in recommending it to the 
acceptance of the American people, and in vindicating it against 
the objections of Mr. Henry. 

On the other hand — motives of feeling, calculations of advance- 
ment, idiosyncrasies of character, or accidental influences, led some 
of the military men to take their station in the opposite class. For 
example — Gen. Gates, who had failed in an attempt to supplant 



states wished to establish, the distinguishing feature of which was to be, that 
equality of power which was enjoyed by the states under the articles of con- 
federation. This claim of the few to an equality of power with the many was 
resisted as engrafting an aristocratic principle upon our republican institu- 
tions, no matter what the pretence upon which it was sought to be established. 
Time, however, has changed all this. The outs wishing to be ins resorted to the 
state governments as levers to assist them in overthrowing the federal admi- 
nistration, and naturally enough strove to magnify the places they possessed. 
Then some of the large states, forgetting all they had urged in the convention, 
consented that they should loom but little larger than Rhode Island and De- 
laware on the great sea of federal affairs, that they might be big ships in their 
own rivers; and arrogating to themselves more exclusive republicanism, main- 
tained those state rights which they formerly pronounced aristocratic, and 
were peculiarly indignant at as involving a sacrifice of the rights of men. 

O pudor! 
O magna Carthago probrosis 
Altior Italise minis! 

But, alas! your political saint also claims his privilege, and asks with Sir 
Hudibras's Ralpho, 

"Is 't not ridiculous and nonsense, 

A saint should be a slave to conscience?"] 



25 

Gen. Washington as commander-in-chief, and whose disappoint- 
ment was embittered by subsequent misfortunes, fell out of his na- 
tural position and became a partizan of Mr. Jefferson. Others, 
whose stations in their proper class, promised but a slow or doubt- 
ful promotion, went over to the democratic side from a hope that, 
as glow-worms shine in the dark, their modicum of military repu- 
tation would become distinguishable by a society in which none 
existed. Some yielded to the force of counsel, some to love of 
change, and some to sympathy with the wild movements of the French 
revolution. But the great body of the military class, the distinguished 
officers of the revolution, such as Hamilton, Lincoln, Knox, Wayne, 
Morgan, Williams, Lee, Howard, the Pinckneys, Pickering, Og- 
den, Davie, and Brooks, were the firm supporters of Gen. Wash- 
ington. In short, it was enough to see a member of that class to 
set him down as a federalist. 

Both Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson were abroad on diplomatic 
missions, when the constitution was framed and adopted, and the 
parties first took their ground. They both returned, however, 
shortly after — when in consequence of the political zeal and abili- 
ties which Mr. Adams had displayed in various important situa- 
tions, together with his geographical position, he was honourably 
associated with Gen. Washington in the first election; and receiv- 
ing the second number of votes, was chosen Vice President of the 
United States. 

Mr. Jefferson, with similar claims — and a higher reputation for 
literary and scientific attainments, could not be overlooked — and 
enjoying the personal friendship of the President, as we have seen, 
was by him placed at the head of his cabinet. He was understood 
to be in favour of adopting a general government, but to have dis- 
approved several important features in the system that had been 
devised; so that while the influence of his station and his general 
reputation, secured the respect of both parties, his opinions pro- 
voked the displeasure of neither. In this convenient neutrality he 
remained, co-operating, generally, in the measures of the Presi- 
dent, and patronising dexterously the opposition to them,* until, by 
concurring in the proposition to require Genet's recall, and writing 
an elaborate despatch in exposure of his insolence ""and folly, he 
found himself in danger of being identified decisively in political 
reputation with Gen. Washington's principal supporters, and of 
losing the harvest of popularity which he had secretly sown, and. 
studiously cultivated in the discontents of the party opposed to 
him. He therefore withdrew from the cabinet, professing an 
irresistible impatience to sink for ever into profound retirement, 
and an irreversible determination to cultivate to the day of his 

* Mr. Madison was the leader of this opposition in congress, and Freneau, 
a clerk in Mr. Jefferson's department, the avowed editor of the Gazette that 
supported it. 



26 

death, "peas and philosophy;" extricating himself from the hosti- 
lity likely to attend measures in the conception and execution of 
which he had participated, and resolved that if it did not fall with 
overwhelming violence on Gen. Washington and his friends, it 
should not be for want of his secret instigation. In this spirit was 
evidently written the letter which is now to be the subject of exa- 
mination.* 

It first attacks the president for denouncing in his speech to con- 
gress — which had been delivered about a month previously — certain 
political clubs or associations, which, under the denomination of 
Democratic Societies, had set thtsmselves up in various districts of 
the United States, for the avowed purpose of controlling the foreign 
policy of the government, of saving the people from the iniquity of 
their rulers, and keeping alive, by inflaming public opinion against 
the character and measures of General Washington, the spirit of 
liberty, which they represented to be fast decaying under the influ- 
ence of his name and counsels. 

Adopting for their model the revolutionary clubs of France, which 
were then engaged in their work of proscription and havoc — they 
appointed committees for the purpose of securing conformity of 
schemes, and concert of action. They reprobated the determina- 
tion of the Executive to maintain a neutral position between France 
and England — as a base forfeiture of our obligation to repay by 
military assistance to the former, the military aid we had received 
from her in the war of the revolution; exhorted the people to disre- 
gard it, and encouraged generally, contempt for the federal govern- 
ment, and resistance to its laws. That extraordinary envoy, citi- 
zen Genet, a perfect conductor of the folly and violence of the 
blood-stained authorities whom he represented, relying on our re- 
maining animosity against Great Britain, our corresponding grati- 
tude to France, and our ultra-sympathy in favour of her apparent 
eftbrts for freedom, had endeavoured to force our government to 
depart from its wise neutrality, and to engage as an ally of France 
in the war with England. 

In this attempt he proceeded to extremities of insolence and pre- 
sumption, that are too numerous for narration, and almost too enor- 
mous for belief. His intemperance and errors are with dignity 
alluded to by Gen. Washington, in a message to congress, are 
summarily recorded by Marshall in that stage of his history to 
which they belong,! and are ably exposed by Mr. Jefterson himself 
in a despatch of the 16th of August, 1793, from the department of 
state, to our minister in France, soliciting his recall. From these 
authorities we learn that taking advantage of the feelings of our 
people, and the feebleness of our infant institutions — he conducted 

[* See how exactly Mr. Jefferson's position as here described accords with 
that assigned to him by Mr. Tucker, (Vol. I. pages 469-70,) where the incon- 
sistency between his words and actions is likewise clearly portrayed.] 

t Vol. V. pp. 409 and 79. 



27 

himself towards the government, as if the United States, instead ot 
being an independent nation, was a dependency of France — that 
among other enormities he not only assumed but exercised the right 
of fitting out, arming, and equipping in our ports, privateers to 
cruise against the commerce of nations with whom we are at 
peace* — of recruiting from among our citizens, seamen to navigate 
and fight them — of capturing within our waters, the vessels of 
friendly nations engaged in a peaceful commerce with ourselves — 
of condemning prizes so made by virtue of admiralty powers, vested 
by himself in the consuls of France residing in our ports — all this 
in open violation of our jurisdiction, contempt of our sovereignty, 
and in defiance of the express and repeated interdiction of our go- 
vernment, communicated through Mr. Jett'erson himself. 

In this course of irregularity and outrage, as Mr. Jefferson well 
knew, he had been aided and abetted by the democratic societies — 
whose most active members, for the honour of our native citizens, 
be it remembered, were renegado Irish and miscreant Frenchmen, 
whose evolutions were regulated by Genet, and whose dark spirit 
polluted and misled the generous enthusiasm of our own people. 

In a letter of the 26th of August, 1793, addressed to Gen. Lee, 
and referring to his appointment as commander-in-chief of the 
western expedition, Gen. Washington thus speaks of these socie- 
ties, "I consider this insurrection as the hrst formidable fruit of the 
democratic societiesj brought forth I believe too prematurely for 
their own views, which may contribute to the annihilation of them. 
That these societies were instituted by the artful and designing 
members, (many of their body I have no doubt mean well, but 
know little of the real plan) primarily to sow the seeds of jealousy 
and distrust among the people, of the government, by destroying 
all confidence in the administration of itj — and that these doctrines 
have been budding ever since — is not new to any one who is ac- 
quainted with the characters of their leaders, and have (has) been 
attentive to their manoeuvres. I early gave it as my opinion to the 
confidential characters around me, that if these societies were not 
counteracted, (not by prosecutions, the ready way to make them 
grow stronger) or did not fall into disesteem from the knowledge 
of their origin, and the views with which they had been instituted 
by their father Genet, for purposes well known to the government; 
they would shake the government to its foundation. Time and cir- 
cumstances have confirmed me in this opinion, and I deeply regret 
the probable consequences, not as they will affect me personally, 
(for I have not long to act on this theatre, and sure I am that not a 
man among them can be more anxious to put me aside, than I am 
to sink into the profoundest retirement,) but because 1 see under 
popular and fascinating guises, the most diabolical attempts to de- 
stroy the best fabric of human government and happiness that has 
ever been presented to the acceptance of mankind. "t 

* England and Holland. t Vol. IV. pp. 489-90. 



28 

An explanation of the means here alluded to as adapted to the 
purpose of extirpating the influence of these associations is to be 
found in Mr. Jefferson's diary of Cabinet Consultations, held on 
the 1st and 2nd of August, 1793. From this it appears that five 
propositions were submitted to the ministers of State. The first 
was that a full statement of Genet's conduct be communicated to 
our envoy in France, to be by him laid before the French govern- 
ment — agreed to unanimously. The second, that in that letter his 
recall be required — Mr. Jefferson preferring that it should be a 
desire delicately expressed, the other members in favour of a pe- 
remptory demand. Third, that Genet be sent off — proposed by 
the Secretary of war, but disagreed to by every other. Fourth, to 
write a letter to Genet the same in substance as that to our minis- 
ter in France, and let him know we had applied for his recall. Mr. 
Jefferson was against this, because he thought it would render Genet 
extremely active in his plans, and endanger confusion. But he 
was overruled by the other three gentlemen and the president. 
Fifth, that a publication of the whole correspondence, and a state- 
ment of the proceedings should be made by way of appeal to the 
people. This Mr. Jefferson opposed upon two grounds; first, that 
it would work unpleasantly at home, by increasing the vigour and 
importance of the democratic society,* which he afiirmed had for 
its object solely the approaching election of Governor of Pennsyl- 
vania, and if let alone, would die away after that was over — by 
making the President appear to be a partizan — by exposing him to 
the attacks of anonymous writers, and to a counter appeal which 
Genet would in all probability publish. The second, that it would 
work unpleasantly abroad, by indisposing the government of 
France, and gratifying her enemies. He adds — "the President 
manifestly inclined to the appeal to the people." 

From this diary it is evident that although these societies were 
just beginning their operations, were considered by the Secretary 
of State as having but a local object, and an ephemeral existence, 
and had then only been dangerous through their incipient, though 
admitted connexion with Genet, the President was earnestly in 
favour of an extraordinary appeal to the nation at large, for the 
purpose of counteracting their schemes and influence, and bringing 
them into disesteem, and that Mr. Jefferson when called on for his 
opinion, upon the honour of a man and a minister, dissuaded this 
measure solely upon the ground of expediency— never intimating a 
scruple on that of principle, or alleging that it would "make the 
President the organ of an attack on the freedom of discussion, the 

* The original and central society of which Mr. Jefferson here speaks, was 
established at Philadelphia, the seat of the general government, and in imme- 
diate connexion with Genet, the 30th May, 1793, about three weeks after 
Genet's arrival there, and two months before this conference. The affiliated 
and corresponding associations were subsequently organized in concert with 
it, in various cities and towns of the Union. See Marshall, Vol. V. p. 426. 



29 

freedom of writing, printing, and publishing" — or the instrument 
of a "faction of nionocrats in an act of extraordinary boldness." 

Yet afterwards when they had extended their ramifications 
throughout the Union, had perseveringly encouraged and justified 
the insolent proceedings of Genet — had stimulated the malecon- 
tents of western Pennsylvania into a violent and extending insur- 
rection — then, when the President in an ordinary communication 
to Congress, relating its suppression, in alluding (as he was bound 
in truth and justice to do) to the causes which had excited it — 
said "let the people persevere in their aftectionate vigilance over 
that precious depository of American happiness, the constitution 
of the United States. x\nd when in the calm moments of reflec- 
tion, they shall have retraced the origin and progress of the insur- 
rection, let them determine whether it has not been fomented by 
combinations of men, who, careless of consequences, and disre- 
garding the unerring truth that those who rouse cannot always ap- 
pease a civil convulsion, have disseminated, from ignorance or 
perversion of facts, suspicions, jealousies, and accusations of the 
whole government," then I say, Mr. Jefferson thought himself 
called on to raise his head from the pillow of philosophical tran- 
quillity, and secretly to reprobate this part of the message to the 
leading member of Congress from the President's own state, and to 
the head of the opposition in that body, as a daring outrage on the 
liberty of speech and of the press, and the gross effusion of a mo- 
narchial spirit. Was this consistent with friendship, or honour, or 
patriotism, or justice, or truth.^ If he thought the President had 
committed an error, and chose to make it the subject of observa- 
tion, he should as a friend have addressed his remarks at once to 
him; and if he apprehended that his measures were likely to pro- 
duce mischief to the nation, unless instantly counteracted, as a 
good citizen and an honest man he should have appealed openly to 
the people. 

The clubs, to preserve the influence and favour of which, he 
was thus sacrificing his honour as a friend, and his duty as a citi- 
zen, in the answer of the Senate to the President's speech, which 
as we have seen is the subject of Mr. Jefferson's mingled censure 
and ridicule, are noticed in the following terms — "Our anxiety, 
arising from the licentious and open resistance to the laws in the 
Western counties of Pennsylvania, has been increased by the pro- 
ceedings of certain self-created societies relative to the laws and 
administration of the government; proceedings in our apprehension, 
founded in political error, calculated, if not intended, to disor- 
ganize our government, and which, by inspiring delusive hopes of 
support, have been instrumental in misleading our citizens in the 
scene of insurrection." A motion to the same effect was carried 
against the strenuous opposition of Mr. Madison, by 47 to 45 in 
the House of Representatives, though through his exertions the 
application of its censure was subsequently restrained to associa- 
4 



30 

tions within the insurgent districts, by the casting vote of the 
speaker. 

Although thus shielded by the friends of Mr. Jefterson, the de- 
mocratic societies could not withstand the weight of Gen. Wash- 
ington's disapprobation, supported as it was by the concurring 
reprehension of the legislative bodies. They languished under public 
disesteeni, and struggled against popular execration, until the sum- 
mer of 1796, when the overthrow of their prototypes in France 
and the downfall of Robespierre, put an end to their mischievous 
existence. Marshall, in relating the circumstances of their disso- 
lution, observes, "not more ceitain is it that the boldest streams 
must disappear, if the fountains which fed them be emptied, than 
was the dissolution of the Democratic Societies of America, when 
the Jacobin Clubs were denounced by France."* 

As Mr. Jefterson proceeds to contrast these societies very 
favourably with that of the Cincinnati, which he reproaches with 
"carving out for itself hereditary distinctions, lowering over our 
Constitution eternally, meeting together in all parts of the Union 
periodically with closed doors, accumulating a capital in their 
separate treasury, corresponding secretly and regularly; and of 
which society," he adds, "the very persons denouncing the demo- 
crats, are themselves the fathers, founders, and high otlicers — " it 
will serve to show the sincerity and justice of the sentiments he 
was thus instilling through Mr. Madison into the public mind, if 
we refer to the account he gave of this same society of Cincinnati 
in the year 1786 to the author of an article on political and diplo- 
matic economy in a French Encyclopedia.! 

"Having been in America during the period in which this insti- 
tution was formed, and being then in a situation which gave me 
opportunities of seeing it in all its stages, I may venture to give 
M. de Meusnier materials for a succinct history of its origin and 
establishment. I should write its history in the following form. 

"When, on the close of that war, which established the inde- 
pendence of America, its army was about to be disbanded, the offi- 
cers, who, during the course of it, had gone through the most try- 
ing scenes together, who, by mutual aids and good offices, had 
become dear to one another, felt with great apprehension of mind 
the approach of that moment, which was to separate them, never, 
perhaps, to meet again. They were from different states, and from 
distant parts of the same state. Hazard alone could therefore 
give them but rare and partial occasions of seeing each other. 
They were, of course, to abandon altogether, the hope of ever 
meeting again, or to devise some occasion which might bring them 
together. And why not come together on purpose at stated times.? 
Would not the trouble of such a journey be greatly overpaid by 
the pleasure of seeing each other again, by the sweetest of all con- 
solations, the talking over the scenes of difficulty and endearment 

♦ Vol. V. p. 602. t Vol. I. p. 416, et. seq. 



31 

thej had gone through? This, too, would enable them to know 
who of them should succeed in the world, who should be unsuc- 
cessful, and to open the purses of all to every labouring brother. 
This idea was too soothing not to be cherished in conversation. It 
was improved into that of a regular association, with an organized 
administration, with periodical meetings, general and particular, 
fixed contributions for those who should be in distress, and a badge, 
by which, not only those who had not had occasion to become per- 
sonally known, should be able to recognise one another, but which 
should be worn by their descendants, to perpetuate among them 
the friendship which had bound their ancestors together. 

"Gen. Washington was, at that moment, oppressed v/ith the ope- 
ration of disbanding an army which was not paid, and the difficulty 
of this operation was increased, by some two or three states having 
expressed sentiments, which did not indicate a sufficient attention 
to their payment. He was sometimes present when his officers were 
fashioning in their conversations, their newly proposed society. He 
saw the innocence of its origin, and foresaw no eftects less innocent. 
He was at that time writing his valedictory letter to the states, which 
has been so deservedly applauded by the world. Far from thinking 
it a moment to multiply the causes of irritation, by thwarting a propo- 
sition which had absolutely no otherbasis but that of benevolence and 
friendship, he was rather satisfied to find himself aided in his diffi- 
culties by this new incident, which occupied, and at the same time, 
soothed, the minds of his officers. He thought too, that this insti- 
tution would be one instrument the more, for strengthening the 
federal bond, and for promoting federal ideas. The institution was 
formed. They incorporated into it the officers of the French army 
and navy, by whose sides they had fought, and with whose aid they 
had finally prevailed." 

After stating that Gen. Washington accepted the office of Presi- 
dent of the society, (which he held until his death) and mentioning 
the opposition which its supposed tendency to divide the commu- 
nity into distinct orders, soon excited, he proceeds, (p. 418.) 

"The uneasiness excited by this institution, had very early caught 
the notice of Gen. Washington. Still recollecting all the purity of 
the motives which gave it birth, he became sensible that it might 
produce political evils, which the warmth of those motives had 
masked. Add to this, that it was disapproved by the mass of citi- 
zens of the union. This alone, was reason strong enough in a coun- 
try, where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the 
law. He saw that the objects of the institution were too light to be 
opposed to considerations as serious as these; and that it was be- 
come necessary to annihilate it absolutely. On this, therefore, he 
was decided. The first annual meeting at Philadelphia, was now 
at hand; he w^ent to that, determined to exert all his influence for its 
suppression. He proposed it to his fellow officers, and urged it 
with all his powers. It met an opposition which was observed to 
cloud his face with an anxiety, that the most distressful scenes of 



32 

the war had scarcely ever produced. It was canvassed for several 
days, and at length it was no more a doubt what would be its ulti- 
mate fate. The order was on the point of receiving its annihilation, 
by the vote of a great majority of its members. In this moment, 
their envoy arrived from France, charged with letters from the 
French officers, accepting with cordiality the proposed badges of 
union, with solicitations from others, to be received into the order, ■ 
and with notice that their respectable sovereign had been pleased 
to recognise it, and to permit his officers to wear its badges. The 
prospect was now changed. The question assumed a new form. 
After the ofter made by them, and accepted by their friends, in 
what words could they clothe a proposition to retract it, which 
would not cover themselves with the reproaches of levity and in- 
gratitude.'' which would not appear an insult to those whom they 
loved? Federal principles, popular discontent, were considerations, 
whose weight was known and felt by themselves. But would fo- 
reigners know and feel them equally.'' would they so far acknow- 
ledge their cogency, as to permit, without indignation, the Eagle 
and Ribbon to be torn from their breasts, by the very hands which 
had placed them there? The idea revolted the whole society. They 
found it necessary then, to preserve so much of their institution as 
might continue to support this foreign branch, while they should 
prune oft" every other, which would give offence to their fellow-citi- 
zens; thus sacrificing on each hand, to their friends, and to their 
country. 

The society was to retain its existence, its name, its meetings, 
and its charitable funds; but these last were to be deposited with 
their respective legislatures. The order was to be no longer heredi- 
tary. *rhe Eagle and Ribbon were indeed retained, because they 
were worn, and they wished them to be worn, by their friends in a 
country where they would not be objects of offence; but themselves 
never wore them. They laid them up in their bureaus, with the 
medals of American independence, with those of the trophies they 
had taken, and the battles they had won. But through all the United 
States, no officer is seen to offend the public eye with a display of 
this badge. These changes have tranquillized the American states. 
Their citizens feel too much interest in the reputation of their offi- 
cers, and value too much whatever may serve to recall to the me- 
mory of their allies, the moments wherein they formed but one 
people, not to do justice to the circumstances which prevented the 
total annihilation of the order; and it would be an extreme afflic- 
tion to them, if the domestic reformation which has been found ne- 
cessary, if the censures of individual writers, or if any other cir- 
cumstance, should discourage the wearing their badge by their 
allies, or lessen its reputation." He then adds, that the above is 
♦'a short and true history of the Order of the Cincinnati."* 

* Soon after Meusnier's article on the Cincinnati -vOas published, Mr. Jeffer- 
son enclosed it to Gen. Washington, (Vol. II. p. 63,) observing, "In a work 



33 

From this account then, we have the grave authority of Mr. Jef- 
ferson himself, for saying, that the Society of Cincinnati, was 
founded exclusively on sentiments of. "benevolence and friend- 
ship," was "innocent in its origin," and as far as its members could 
foresee, "no less innocent in its effects," was considered likely to 
smooth the difficulties of disbanding the army, and to strengthen 
the tendencies to union among the states. That as soon as unfore- 
seen objections were entertained towards it by their fellow-citizens, 
"a great majority" of its members, in conformity with the advice of 
Gen. Washington, and in patriotic deference to the sovereignty of 
the public will, resolved on its immediate annihilation. That this 
radical measure was prevented solely by an accidental circum- 
stance, which opposed to it their respect, gratitude, and attachment 
for ihe French officers, who in compliance with their invitation, and 
by permission of their own government had become members of it. 
That, influenced by a desire to comply with the opinions of their 
countrymen, and at the same time to avoid disrespect to their fo- 
reign friends, they pruned oft' the hereditary quality, and other 
objectionable parts of their institution, and preserved only so much 
as might support the foreign branch. That this reformation satis- 
fied the people of the United States, who felt a pride in the estima- 
tion in which the society was held abroad, and would view, with 
"extreme affliction," any evidence of a decline in that flattering 
sentiment. 

This, he says, is "the true history," of the society. It does not 
look like ^'carving out for itself hereditary distinctions,''^ or '■'lower- 
ing over the constitution eternally.''^ And as to "accumulating a 
capital in their separate treasury," he declares the object of that 
design (for no capital of any consequence ever was accumulated, 
the great majority of the officers having lived and died poor,) was 
to relieve the necessities of their unfortunate associates; and that 
the funds, should any be collected, were to be placed for that pur- 
pose in the treasuries of the several states. 

As he affirms that his account to M. de Meusnier was a true his- 
tory, it is hardly necessary to say that the one here given to Mr. 
Madison, could not be any thing but a libel, upon men whose pa- 
triotism, benevolence, friendship and modesty, throughout all its 
stages, he himself had solemnly attested. That he presented the 
genuine account to his French friend, and put the base one on Mr. 

which is sure of going down to the latest postfrity, I thought it material to set 
facts to rights, as much as possible." Then, after stating that his apprehen- 
sions of possible ill consequences from the establishment of such an institution, 
had been rather increased than diminished by observations he had made in 
Europe; all of which apprehensions the experience of a very few years proved 
to be utterly groundless, he adds, "When the society themselves shall weigh 
the possibility of evil, against the impossibility of any good to proceed from 
this institution, I cannot help hoping they will eradicate it. Iknoio they -wish, 
the permanence of our governments, as much as any individual composing them.''' 



34 

Madison, you may be inclined to attribute to the predominance of 
familiarity over respect, in their intimacy. But the fact is, that 
the truth was to be locked up in a foreign library, or to reach few 
American readers, and was intended to minister to no ulterior pur- 
pose. Whereas, the article fabricated for Mr. Madison, was for 
home consumption; was a thread in that web of misrepresentation 
which he was weaving around the character of Gen. Washington — 
a web of torments — which, if we believe him,* were not less fierce 
and mighty, than those which writhe and swell the figure of Ca- 
nova's Hercules — when the distracted demigod — 

felt the envenom'd robe, and tore, 



Through pain, up by the roots Thessalian Pines; 
And Lichas from the top of CEta threw 
Into the Euboic sea." 

These torments were cruelly inflicted, as they were calmly wit- 
nessed, for the purpose of bringing his own claims before the peo- 
ple with a better chance of success. 

As this hatred and suspicion of the Cincinnati society were 
evidently spurious and unfounded, you will be the less surprised 
to learn, that the zeal expressed in the same letter, in behalf of 
the democratic societies, "the friends of popular rights," was not 

* The pain which these and similar slanders inflicted on the feelings of Gen. 
Washington, and the remorseless philosophy with which it was contemplated 
by Mr. Jeiferson, are thus described by the latter. "The President was much 
inflamed; got into one of those passions when he cannot command himself; 
ran on much on the personal abuse which had been bestowed on him; defied 
any man on earth to produce one single act of his since he had been in the 
government, which was not done on the purest motives; that he had never re- 
pented but once the having slipped the moment of resigning his office, and that 
was every moment since; that by God he had rather be in his grave than in 
his present situation; that he had rather be on his farm than to be made Empe- 
ror of the world; and yet that they were charging him with wanting to be a 
king. That that rascal Frcncau sent him three of his papers every day, as if 
he thought he would become the distributor of his papers; that he could see in 
this noihing bat an impudent design to insult him; he ended in this high tone." 
(Vol. IV. p. 491.) Again, "He adverted to a piece in Freneau's paper; he said 
he despised these attacks on him personally" — "He was evidently sore and 
warm, and I took his intention to be, that I should interpose in some way with 
Freneau, perhaps withdraw his appointment as translating clerk to my office. 
But I will not do it. His paper has saved the constitution." (P. 485.) 

Not to speak of the indecency of the Secretary of State's thus patronising an 
editor who was abusing and in.sulting the President daily to his face — devoting 
the labour he owed the government to the purpose of obstructing and reviling 
it — I will only bring to your notice the rule Mr. Jefienson himself laid down 
when he became President, with regard to disaffected employes — (Vol. IV. p. 
99.) ''I have only requested they would be quiet, and they should be safe; that 
if their conscience urges them to take an active and zealous part in opposition, 
it ought also to urge them to retire from a post which they could not conscien- 
tiously conduct with fidelity to the trust reposed in them; and on failure to re- 
tire, I have removed them." The officer who abased and insulted President 
Washington, was to be patronised and encouraged, as "the saviour of the con- 
stitution" — he who should oppose President Jefferson, to be removed as "un- 
faithful to his trust!" 



35 

the fruit of principle but of interest. At page 345, of his fourth 
volume, is a letter from Mr. Jefferson of the 6th of March, 1822, 
in which he declines an invitation to become a member of a society 
whose object was "to promote civilization and improvement among 
the Indians." In this letter he observes — "I shall not undertake 
to draw a line of demarcation between private associations of 
laudable views and unimposing numbers, and those whose magni- 
tude may rivalise and jeopardise the march of regular government. 
Yet such a line does exist. I have seen the days — they were those 
which preceded the Revolution; when even this last and perilous 
engine became necessary: but they were days which no man would 
wish to see a second time."'' He proceeds to deprecate such asso- 
ciations upon the ground of their being bad and prolific examples, 
of being "wheels within a wheel," and by reference to the excesses 
perpetrated by the Jacobin Clubs of France. 

It would appear therefore that while Mr. Jeftersoofelt called on 
"as a good citizen" to discourage a society instituted for the pur- 
pose of "promoting civilization and improvement among the In- 
dians," as setting a dangerous example, and tending "to rivalise 
and jeopardise the march of regular government — " he pronounced 
Gen. 'Washington guilty of "an inexcusable aggression on popular 
rights," when he discountenanced in terms of anxious patriotism 
and considerate dignity, the proceedings of organized political 
clubs, which had nearly involved us in foreign war, in opposition 
to "the march of regular government," and had, as he and his 
whole Cabinet believed, and as a majority of the members of the 
legislature declared, fomented a formidable domestic insurrection. 

Since, of his contradictory opinions on this subject, those ex- 
pressed in his letter to Mr. Morse, are said to be conscientious, 
the natural and melancholy conclusion is, that the false and scan- 
dalous ones again fall to the share of Mr. Madison. 

But to go on with his letter of December, 1794. After attempt- 
ing to separate these societies from their proceedings, affecting "to 
put out of sight the persons" whose confessed misdemeanours he 
calls misbehaviour, he proceeds to affirm that the President's allu- 
sion to them was generally and justly considered "an abstract at- 
tempt on the natural and constitutional rights of the people." 

The injustice of these expressions is much more conspicuous 
than their meaning. What is "an abstract attempt," on a practi- 
cal subject — or on any subject? But a more important question 
is, what sense of equity was Mr. Jeflierson guided by, when he pro- 
nounced the societies innocent, in spite of practical guilt, and Gen. 
Washington guilty, in spite of practical innocence.^ Is this judg- 
ing the tree by its fruits, or men by their works.^ 

It may be here observed, that while in his letters to Gen. Wash- 
ington of May the 14th and September the 7th, 1794, and that of 
June the 19th, 1796, the last, it appears, he ever wrote him, he 
was humbugging that confiding friend, that kind benefactor, that 



36 

illustrious patriot, with professions of undiminished attachment for 
him, unabated love for retirement and repugnance to politics — 
with such expressions as ''I cherish tranquillity too much to suSer 
political things to enter my mind at all," "it is a great pleasure to 
me to retain the esteem and approbation of the President," "I put 
away this disgusting dish of old fragments, and talk to you about 
my peas and clover," with "the Albany pea" — "the hog pea" — 
"the true winter vetch" — "the Carolina drill" — and "the Scotch 
threshing machine," he was collecting from "an extensive circle of 
observation and information," and transmitting to the head of the 
opposition in Congress, the most unjust and poisonous opinions 
that could possibly be fabricated of the President's character and 
conduct. This would of itself have furnished cause sufficient for 
Gen. Lee, or any other sincere friend of the President, to put him 
on his guard, to open his eyes to the ambush from which this pre- 
tended friend and philosopher was secretly wounding him — where 
too his great and patriotic soul felt injury the most acutely — in the 
love and confidence of his country.* 

The next subject of crimination against Gen. Washington, grows 
out of that which has been considered the second in importance 
\ and advantage among the measures of his administration, viz: the 
suppression of the western insurrection. As by the first, his pro- 
clamation of neutrality, he gave a just and independent direction 
to our character as a nation, and averted the calamities of foreign 
war, so by his repression of this extravagant rebellion, he confirm- 
ed the power of our institutions at home, and saved us from the 
horrors of civil bloodshed. To form a correct estimate of this cen- 
sure, it will be necessary to attend to a fair and unprejudiced 
account of that event in our history which is taken from Marshall's 
life of Washington,! and is confirmed in every particular by Ram- 
say in his history of the United States.^ 

From these authorities it appears, that when in the year 1791 it 
was found that the revenue arising from duties which had been laid 

[* Lest any one should suspect that the political activity of Mr. Jefferson at 
this period is exaggerated in the text — seeing how opposite such conduct was 
to his invariable declarations to friend and foe — I will cite from the reference 
in the last note the following scrap. "It is certain that Monticello was in this 
(1794) and the two succeeding years, the head-quarters of those opposed to 
the federal policy, and that few measures of the republican party in Congress 
were undertaken without his advice or concurreace. He even had an agency 
in directing the attacks of the opposition journals; and manuscript draughts, 
bills, resolutions and reports, prepared by hira about that period, are yet ex- 
hibited by those who are curious in autographs, or in the political history of 
the times. Some of the members of Congress from Virginia, Kentucky and 
the Southern States were his intimate friends; and -with a part of these he 
communicated not only by letter, but also by a personal intercourse during 
the summer on their visits to the watiering places in the mountains of Vir- 
ginia. Among his most frequent visiters were Mr. Madison, Mr. Monroe 
and Mr. Giles."] 

t Vol. V. pp. 286 to 93, and 575 to 90. t Vol. III. pp. 74, 5, 6, 7, 8. 



37 

on imported articles, though carried to the highest productive limit, 
would not be sufficient to discharge the current expenses of the 
government, and maintain the public credit, it was proposed by the 
executive that a duty should be laid on spirits distilled within the 
United States. This proposition was resisted by the opposition in 
Congress, as an excise law, odious in name and oppressive in cha- 
racter — and as a substitute for it, that party recommended a stamp 
act. The bill, however, for laying a duty on domestic spirits pass- 
ed into a law by a vote of 35 to 21, in the House of Representa- 
tives, and by a more decided majority in the Senate. 

The opposition it encountered in Congress was soon distributed 
tluough various parts of the Union, and took root with peculiar 
strength and tenacity in the tramontane counties of Pennsylvania; 
a district, the inhabitants of which had manifested a general dis- 
like to the constitution under the authority of which the obnoxious 
duty was imposed. It advanced through all the stages of seditious 
violence — from loud discontent to frequent acts of treason, and 
from these to open and general insurrection. Marshall thus de- 
scribes these outrages and the conduct of the government on this 
critical occasion. 

"On the part of the Executive, this open defiance of the laws, 
and of the authority of the government, was believed imperiously 
to require that the strength and efficacy of those laws should be 
tried. Against the perpetrators of some of the outrages which 
had been committed, bills of indictment had been found in the 
courts of the United States, upon which process was directed to 
issue; and at the same time process was also issued against a 
great number of noncomplying distillers. Charging himself with 
the service of these processes, the marshal repaired in person to 
the country which was the scene of these disorders. On the 15th 
of July (1794) while employed in the execution of his duty, he 
was beset on the road by a body of armed men, who fired on him, 
but fortunately did him no personal injury. At day break the 
ensuing morning, a party attacked the house of Gen. Nevil, the 
inspector; but he defended himself resolutely, and obliged the 
assailants to retreat. Knowing well that this attack had been pre- 
concerted, and consequently apprehending that it would be re- 
peated, he applied to the militia officers and magistrates of the 
county for protection. The answer was, that owing to the too 
general combination of the people to oppose the revenue system, 
the laws could not be executed so as to aftbrd him protection: that 
should the posse comitatiis be ordered out to support the civil 
authority, few could be got that were not of the party of rioters. 
On the succeeding day, the insurgents re-assembled to the number 
of about 500, to renew their attack on the house of the inspector. 
On finding that no protection could be afforded by the civil authori- 
ty, he applied to the commanding officer at Fort Pitt, and had 
obtained a detachment of eleven men from that garrison, who were 
5 



38 

joined by Major Kirkpatrick. Successful resistance to so great a 
force being obviously impracticable, a parley took place, at which 
the assailants, after requiring that the inspector and all his papers* 
should be delivered up, demanded that the party in the house 
should march out and ground their arms. This being refused the 
parley terminated and the assault commenced. The action lasted 
until the assailants set fire to several adjacent buildings, the heat 
from which was so intense, that the house could be no longer occu- 
pied. From this cause, and from the apprehension that the fire 
would soon be communicated to the main building. Major Kirk- 
patrick and his party surrendered themselves. The marshal and 
Col. Pressly Nevil were seized on their way to Gen. Nevil's house, 
and detained until two the next morning. The marshal, espe- 
cially, was treated with extreme rudeness. His life was frequently 
threatened, and was probably saved by the interposition of some 
leading characters who possessed more humanity, or more pru- 
dence than those with whom they were associated. He could only 
obtain his safety or liberty by entering into a solemn engagement, 
which was guaranteed by Col. Nevil, to serve no more process on 
the western side of the Alleghany Mountains. The marshal and 
inspector having both retired to Pittsburg, the insurgents deputed 
two of their body, one of whom was a justice of the peace, to de- 
mand that the former should surrender all his process, and that 
the latter should resign his office: threatening in case of refusal to 
attack the place, and seize their persons. These demands were 
not acceded to; but Pittsburg affording no security, these officers 
escaped from the dangers which threatened them, by descending 
the Ohio, after which, they found their way by a circuitous route 
to the seat of government. The perpetrators of these treasonable 
practices would, of course, be desirous to ascertain their strength, 
and to discover any latent enemies who might remain unsuspected 
in the bosom of the disaffected country. To obtain this informa- 
tion, the mail from Pittsburg to Philadelphia was stopped by armed 
men, who cut it open, and took out the letters it contained. In 
some of these letters, a direct disapprobation of the violent mea- 
sures which had been adopted was openly avowed; and in others 
expressions were used which indicated unfriendly dispositions to- 
wards them. Upon acquiring this intelligence, delegates were 
deputed from the town of Washington to Pittsburg where the 
writers of the offensive letters resided, to demand the banishment 
of the offenders. A prompt obedience to this demand was un- 
avoidable, and the inhabitants of Pittsburg, who were convened on 
the occasion, engaged to attend a general meeting of the people, 
who were to assemble the next day at Braddock's field, in order to 
carry into effect such further measures as might be deemed advisa- 

* "The inspector had left the house and secreted himself— the demand of 
the papers was acceded to." — Note by Marshall. 



39 

ble, with respect to the excise and its advocates. They also deter- 
mined to elect delegates to a convention which was to meet on the 
14th of August, at Parkinson's ferry. The avowed motives to 
these outrages were to compel the resignation of all officers en- 
gaged in the collection of the duties on distilled spirits? to with- 
stand by force of arms the authority of the United States, and 
thereby to extort a repeal of the law imposing those duties, and an 
alteration in the conduct of government. Affidavits attesting this 
serious state of things were laid before the Executive. The oppo- 
sition had now progressed to a point which seemed to forbid the 
continuance of a temporising system. The eftbrts at conciliation, 
which, for more than three years the government had persisted to 
make, and the alterations repeatedly introduced into the act, for 
the purpose of rendering it less exceptionable, instead of diminish- 
ing the arrogance of those who opposed their will to the sense of 
the nation, had drawn forth sentiments indicative of designs much 
deeper than the evasion of a single act. The execution of the laws 
had at length been resisted by open force, and a determination to 
persevere in these measures was unequivocally manifested. To 
the government was presented the alternative of subduing, or of 
submitting to, this resistance. The act of Congress which pro- 
vided for calling forth the militia "to execute the laws of the 
Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions," required as a 
prerequisite to the exercise of this power, "that an associate justice, 
or the judge of the district, should certify that the laws of the 
United States were opposed, or their execution obstructed, by com- 
binations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of 
judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals." In 
the same act it was provided, "that if the militia of the State where 
such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to 
suppress the same, the President may employ the militia of other 
states." By the unanimous advice of the cabinet, the evidence 
which had been transmitted to the President was laid before one 
of the associate justices, who gave the certificate, which enabled 
the chief magistrate to employ the militia in aid of the civil 
power." 

After relating the deliberations of the Cabinet on the amount of 
force and mode of proceeding, advisable on the occasion, stating 
that Gen. Mifflin, the governor of Pennsylvania, when consulted, 
was of opinion that the militia of his state would not be competent 
to the object of putting down the insurgents; that the President 
issued one proclamation, recapitulating the steps that had been 
taken by the insurgents in violation of the law, and by the govern- 
ment in support of it; and requiring the insurgents to "disperse and 
retire peaceably to their homes, on or before the first of Septem- 
ber:" that a requisition was made on the governors of New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, for quotas of militia to com- 
pose an army of 15,000 men, in tlie hope that the greatness of the 



40 

force would prevent bloodshed; that a deputation consisting of 
Judge Yates of the superior court, Mr. Ross, a senator from Penn- 
sylvania and a gentleman of great popularity in the disaffected 
country, and the Attorney-General of the United States, also a 
citizen of Pennsylvania, were despatched by Gen. Washington to 
offer to the insurgents a general amnesty upon the sole condition 
of future submission to the laws; and that at the request of the ex- 
ecutive, and for the purpose of giving success to this last effort, to 
avoid the employment of military force; the governor of Pennsyl- 
vania appointed commissioners to act in concert with these depu- 
ties; that this last effort at conciliation was unavailing; that the 
insurgents proceeded in their outrageous spirit, and in extending 
the circle of resistance into the neighbouring states of Maryland and 
Virginia, — that the President issued a second proclamation on the 
25th September, describing to the public, the "obstinate and per- 
verse spirit," in which the lenient propositions of the government 
had been received, and declaring his fixed determination to do his 
duty, to see the laws faithfully executed, and to bring the refrac- 
tory to obedience; that the command of the expedition was con- 
ferred on Governor Lee of Virginia, and that the governors of 
Pennsylvania and New Jersey commanded under him the militia of 
their respective states, and that the President in person visited the 
two divisions of the party at Cumberland and Bedford. Marshall 
thus proceeds: "From Cumberland and Bedford the army marched 
in two divisions into the country of the insurgents. As had been 
foreseen, the greatness of the force prevented the effusion of blood. 
The disaffected did not assemble in arms. Several of the leaders 
who had refused to give assurances of future submission to the 
laws, were seized, and some of them detained for legal prosecu- 
tion. A Mr. Bradford, who, in the latter stages of the insurrec- 
tion, had manifested peculiar violence, and had openly advocated 
an appeal to arms, made his escape into the territories of Spain.- 
But although no direct and open opposition was made, the spirit of 
insurrection was by no means subdued. A sour and malignant 
temper displayed itself, which indicated but too plainly that the 
disposition to resist, had only sunk under the presence of the great 
military force brought into the country, but would rise again, 
should that force be suddenly removed. It was therefore thought 
advisable to station for the winter, a detachment, to be commanded 
by Major Gen. Morgan, in the centre of the disaffected country. 
Thus without shedding a drop of blood,* did the prudent vigour of 
the Executive, terminate an insurrection which, at one time, threat- 
ened to shake the government of the United States to its founda- 
tion." 

Here we see from two historians, whose narrations concur, and 

* "Two persons who were convicted of treason, received pardon." 

Note by Marshall. 



41 

have never been contested, that what Mr. Jefferson chose to call 
"transactions against the excise lawj'" and to represent as having 
been "nothing more than riotous," was really an avowed and armed 
opposition to the executive, legislative, and judicial authority of the 
United States. That it had existed for more than three years, and 
had been persevered in, in spite of the tender consideration of the 
legislature, and the patriotic forbearance of the executive; and had 
advanced from an organized disobedience of the law, to a military 
attack upon its officers. That one detachment of the insurgents 
had seized and violated the public mail, on its route to the seat of 
government; that another had waylaid and shot at a civil officer in 
the execution of his duty; that a third had laid siege to the house 
of the inspector, and forced a detachment of the United States' 
troops to surrender at discretion; that from intimidating particular 
agents of government, they had proceeded to expel from their homes 
and banish from their country, bodies of peaceable, orderly citizens; 
that they had rejected all terms of conciliation, and openly pro- 
claimed their determination to control the national legislature by 
military force. 

It is impossible to suppose that Mr. Jefferson could have been 
ignorant of the outrages of these deluded people, and of their in- 
famous leaders; for, independently of their alarming notoriety, they 
took place in the interval between December, 1791, and Septem- 
ber, 1794, during all but nine months of which term he was at the 
head of Gen. Washington's cabinet. Nor could he be ignorant, that 
of this strong and turbulent district, thus obstinate in resistance, 
and determined on violence, the military population had been esti- 
mated at 16,000 men, and the fighting force ready for the field, at 
7,000; a force about three times as great as that with which a feeble 
but ardent adventurer, gained the victory of Preston Pans; about 
twice the number of the army with which he won the action at Fal- 
kirk, and fought the desperate battle of CuUodon; after having 
taken Edinburgh, Glasgow, Carlisle, and Manchester; and, pene- 
trating from the remotest parts of Scotland, to within a hundred 
miles of London, had thrown an old and powerful kingdom into 
consternation.* 

Mr. Jefferson must have known likewise, that the governor of 
Pennsylvania had formally announced to the president, the inade- 
quacy of the well-aft'ected militia of that state, to subdue this revolt; 
that the condition attached to the act, empowering the government 
to call forth the militia of the states to quell insurrections, had been 
complied with, and that it was of a nature which, while it proved 
the existence of the insurrection, proved also that it was the duty 
of the executive to suppress it. He admits too, that "there was 
indeed a meeting to consult about a separation." Yet with all these 
treasonable acts and designs — this array of force and violence of 

♦ SmoUet, Book II. Chap. 8. 



42 

spirit, in opposition to a law which he allows was constitutional, 
and to a government in the first years of its establishment, he has 
the injustice to heap this ridicule and execration on the lawful, 
moderate, and beneficial conduct of his own and his country's 
friend. 

He goes on to assert, that although the excise law was admitted 
by the constitution, it was "an infernal law," discovering his dis- 
guised but real disrespect for that instrument; and to affirm that 
the culpable interference of the executive with the "transactions 
and riots" in Western Pennsylvania would lead to a dissolution of 
the Union. He then adds a piece of information, which besides its 
striking conformity with truth, reflects an interesting light on his 
own history. He declares notwithstanding the well known facts 
that some of the leaders of the insurrection had submitted, that 
others had been seized, and that one, the most obnoxious to punish- 
ment, had effected his escape into the territories of Spain, and that 
the authority of the law had been completely restored throughout 
the disaffected country — notwithstanding these stubborn facts — he 
assures Mr. Madison that from what he could learn, "although the 
western people let the militia army pass quietly, they were objects 
of their laughter not of their fear: and could have been cut off by 
one thousand men in a thousand places in the Alleghany moun- 
tains." Now who ever believes this may very reasonably infer 
that, when he as governor of Virginia, allowed Arnold with a force 
amounting to less than one thousand men* to take possession of the 
capital of that state — at that time the strongest, as it was the 
soundest and most warlike in the Union — and to destroy or carry 
off" the public stores in its neighbourhood, it was laughter not fear ^ 
which prevented Mr. Jefferson from cutting him off, and which per- 
mitted that traitor with a rope about his neck, after calling in his 
undisturbed detachments, to retire as he had advanced, by a march 
of twenty-five miles, in safety to his ships. And upon the same 
principle it may be supposed, when Tarleton with a few dragoons 
penetrated 80 miles higher up the country, and dislodged Mr. Jef- 
ferson from Monticello, that instead of escaping in a paroxysm of 
fright, as was generally believed, he really went off" in a fit of 
laughter!" 

The idea of censuring the employment of force because it was in 
danger of being cut off" by the insurgents, of reprobating the expe- 
dition as improper, and ridiculing it as insufficient, must by its 
felicity engage your attention, while it furnishes one of the many 
examples left by Mr. Jeff'erson, of the weakness of his reason when 
opposed by his passions. It is placed in bolder relief by his asser- 
tion that the confidence of the insurgents and their detestation of 
the law and of the government had all been increased by this un- 
righteous act of Gen. Washington; and also by the fact that at the 

* Marshall, Vol. IV. p. 389. 



43 

very time he was writing this letter to Mr. Madison, he knew that 
Gen. Morgan with a detachment of the militia force was safely en- 
camped in the midst of the insurgents, and keeping them in awe 
and order.* 

It is worthy of remark too, in reference to this part of his letter, 
that the very man who was the acknowledged father of the per-' 
petual embargo law, and the chief magistrate who enforced its provi- 
sions, by which our revenue from customs was completely annihi- 
lated — is the one who denounced the excise law as "an infernal 
one," and protested that the power of enacting it granted by the 
constitution was a vice in that charter. 

His letter proceeds — "I expected to have seen some justification 
of arming one part of society against another — of declaring a civil 
war the moment before the meeting of that body which has the sole 
right of declaring war." This passage it is impossible to consider 
without wonder. Here is a man of great reputation for talents and 
learning, of ripe experience, of long acquaintance with state affairs, 
who had been governor of Virginia at a time when that station was 
supposed to require public spirit and abilities, had been member of 
the Revolutionary Congress, envoy to France, and chief of a Cabi- 
net over which Washington presided, and of which Hamilton was 
a member, gravely writing nonsense, which would disgrace the 
quibble of a county court attorney. He not only calls the employ- 
ment of military force, in obedience to an act of congress, and to 
the president's oath of office, for the purpose of executing a consti- 
tutional law and preventing the dissolution of the Union — "the 
arming of one part of society against another," but accuses the 
president of having declared a civil war, and of having thereby 
illegally forestalled congress, which had alone the right of making 
that declaration. 

In the first place it may be asked who ever heard of such a thing 
before as the declaration of a civil war.^ War has hitherto been 
declared by one sovereignty against another, by independent 
powers. In our first war with Great Britain there was no decla- 
ration of war on either side. In our second, there was a declara- 
tion on both sides — because in the first case the war was a civil 
one, a contest between portions of the same sovereignty; and in the 
second the parties were two separate and independent nations. In 
short, a declaration of war has always been understood to be an 
appeal to the great family of nations, in justification of a resort to 
the trial of arms, by one of its members, against another. It fol- 

[* Mr. Tucker says (Vol. I. p. 487,) "the ease with which this open resist- 
ance to the laws was quelled, afforded matter of triumph and congratulation 
to the friends of the administration, for the prudence and humanity of their 
course, and of censure on the part of the opposition for the vain parade and 
unnecessary expense of a force so disproportionate to the occasion." Thus it 
would seem that Mr. Jefferson differed from all parties in deeming the forces 
of the government as fit only to be an object of laughter to the insurgents.] 



44 

lows as a corollary from this proposition that had war been declared 
against the insurgents, it would ipso facto, have removed all cause 
of complaint against them. For if they were proper objects of a 
declaration of war by our government, they were independent of 
the United States, and the excise law could have been no more 
binding on them than on the people of France or England. 

But overlooking for a moment this absurdity, and admitting that 
the President had thus violated the exclusive right of the Legisla- 
ture, let us see how Congress, if not forestalled, would have 
managed a declaration of war in this case. Was Mr. Madison the 
leading delegate from Virginia and the most accomplished debater 
in the House of Representatives, to have risen in his place, gravely 
announced to the delegations of the other states that the North- 
western district of Virginia was in a state of open insurrection, and 
solemnly required them to declare war against it? Was his col- 
league, who represented the disturbed district, to second or oppose 
this motion? If the first, what became of the right of instruction, 
the reality of representation; if the second, would not war have 
been to be declared against the honourable gentleman himself? 
Were the members from Pennsylvania to insist that the delega- 
tions from Massachusetts, New York and Carolina, should declare 
war against their state; and were the Representatives from Mary- 
land to demand of Congress a similar favour? Is it not lamentable 
that such stuif as this should have been addressed by the Sage of 
Monticello to the Sage of Montpellier, for the purpose of effacing 
from the minds of the American people a just sense of the wisdom 
and patriotism of Washington and Hamilton; and is it not yet more 
so, that it should have had that effect? 

I had hoped this letter would contain all I have to say in refer- 
ence to Mr. Jefferson's statements and cavils, respecting the cha- 
racter of the Western insurrection and the policy of its suppression. 
But I find the subject, and I fear you will, as toilsome and exten- 
sive as the broad chain of mountains along which the disturbance 
took place. The conclusion of one branch of it is only the begin- 
ning of another, and while expecting rest, we are called on for 
further labour. However, as we may be said to have overpassed 
the crest of the principal ridge, we may reasonably expect to clear 
the whole range in the next letter. 



45 



LETTER III. 

If, as Mr. Jefferson seems to have required, Gen. Washington, 
after Congress had passed a law empowering him to employ the 
military force of the country, prescribing the condition and defin- 
ing the emergency which were to render its employment proper — 
if after,this condition and this emergency had been legally ascer- 
tained to have arisen, he had declined resorting to the means of 
restoring the suspended action of the laws, and turning round upon 
Congress had said he could not think of thus delariiig war when 
they alone had the power of doing it, it is not easy to determine 
whether he would have been more liable to ridicule or punishment, 
more likely to provoke contempt or impeachment: either of which 
would have rendered less expedient the course of duplicity and 
injustice that with respect to him, Mr. Jefferson had then entered 
upon, and which, as you will perceive, with various windings and 
shiftings he pursued to the end of his life. 

The broad insinuation which succeeds — that in his speech just 
delivered to Congress, he had uttered falsehoods — "the fables in 
the speech," though more indecent is not more unjust than the 
observations which have been already noticed. Taken in connex- 
ion with them, it fully substantiates the complaint of Gen. Wash- 
ington, "that every act of his adminstration had been tortured, and 
the grossest and most invidious misrepresentations of them made in 
such exaggerated and indecent terms, as could scarcely be applied 
to a Nero." 

To this complaint, the effusion of a strong and heroic mind, tor- 
tured by the unseen stings of calumny and ingratitude, Mr. Jeffer- 
son saw fit to make no reply. Gen. Washington, he discovered, 
though aware of the injuries aimed at him, was far from suspecting 
the hand by wliich they were dealt, and though warned by his 
faithful friend Gen. Lee, refused to admit a suspicion which might 
be unfounded, and would in that case be ungenerous. He saw, 
that instead of withdrawing his confidence he had actually renewed 
its expression, and in proof of it had revealed the substance of the 
information which had been conveyed to him — that like Alexander, 
he showed the accusation while he swallowed the draught. In this 
mood of magnanimity, so congenial to a soul of dignity and honour, 
and so likely to extinguish every rising suspicion, he sagaciously 
determined to leave him; forbearing to disturb a temper of mind, 
which, by opposing unguarded generosity to collected guile, was 
so favourable to the success of his machinations, or to commit him- 
self, in reference to the unheeded warning of Gen. Lee, by any 
6 



46 

thing more specific than coarse and irresponsible abuse of its 
author. 

It cannot escape your observation, that this officer's character 
and feelings were, ns well as the President's, deeply implicated in 
the censures and sarcasms thus levelled against the Western 
Expedition — an injustice, which, by reference to a letter to Mr. 
Giles, it seems was repeated for the edification of members in the 
next Congress. Mr, Giles, like Mr. Madison, was a delegate from 
the President's own State, (of which Gen. Lee also was a citizen) 
was second only to Mr. Madison in skill and eloquence as a 
debater, and was second to no man in violence of opposition; of 
ardent temper, and as deeply tainted with the doctrines of revolu- 
tionary France, as she was with cruelty at home and rapacity 
abroad. To him, Mr. Jcfterson, speaking of this expedition, says 
(Vol. III. p. 318,) it was got up "to quell the pretended insurrec- 
tion in the west, and to march against men at their ploughs." 

Now even if Gen. Lee was, or ought to have been so much of a 
stoic as to be indifferent on his own account to this disparagement, 
to which Mr. Jefferson's place in the confidence of the President 
added weight, he may be supposed to have felt, and may be par- 
doned for the feeling, dissatisfied, somewhat on account of his 
friends and associates — of Gen. Washington, who distinguished 
him, though the youngest in revolutionary rank among the general 
officers employed, by conferring on him the chief command — of 
Gen. Hamilton, who earnestly concurred in that selection — of Gen. 
Morgan, the hero of Quebec, of Saratoga, and the Cowpens, the 
Ney of the West, 'the bravest of our brave' — who had from mo- 
tives of patriotism and personal esteem, consented to serve under 
him on the occasion — of the Governors of Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey, who had buried their sense of existing equality and former 
precedence, in deference to the choice of the President and the 
demands of the crisis — of Gen. Smith, a distinguished revolutionary 
officer — in short, of the whole army, thus described to the Repre- 
sentatives of the nation, as the puppets of a silly and useless exhi- 
bition of military force, and the instruments of a criminal com- 
mencement of civil war. 

As after this waste of absurdity and slander it will probably 
gratify you to contemplate subjects of good sense and truth, I shall 
here introduce a public letter, addressed to Gen. Lee, by Gen. 
Washington, on occasion of his returning to the seat of government 
after reviewing the army at Cumberland and Bedford, which 
exhibits in the clearest light, his tenderness for civil rights, his 
purity of purpose, and his scrupulous respect for the laws of his 
country — and also the opinion he entertained of the motives and 
conduct of the body of citizens who were engaged in this import- 
ant and successful enterprise. 



47 

United States, (Bedford,) October 20th, 1794. 
"To Henry Lee, Esq., 

Coramandei'-in-Chief of the Militia army on its inarch against 
the insurgents in certain western counties of Pennsylvania. 

Sir, — Being about to return to the seat of government, I cannot 
take my departure without conveying through you to the Army 
under your command, the very high sense I entertain of the enlight- 
ened and patriotic zeal for the constitution and the laws, which 
has led them cheerfully to quit their families and homes, and the 
comforts of private life, to undertake and thus far to perform a 
long and fatiguing inarch — and to encounter and endure the hard- 
ships and privations of a military life. Their conduct hitherto 
affords a full assurance that their perseverance will be equal to 
their zeal, and that they will continue to perform with alacrity 
whatever the full accomplishment of the object of their march shall 
render necessary. 

"No citizens of the United States can ever be engaged in a ser- 
vice more important to their country. It is nothing less than to 
consolidate and preserve the blessings of that revolution which, at 
much expense of blood and treasure, constituted us a free and in- 
dependent nation. It is to give to the world an illustrious example 
of the utmost consequence to the cause of mankind. I experience 
heartfelt satisfaction in the conviction that the conduct of the 
troops throughout, will be in every respect answerable to the good- 
ness of the cause and the magnitude of the stake. 

"There is but one point on which I think it proper to add a 
special recommendation. It is this, that every officer and soldier 
will constantly bear in mind that he comes to support the laws, 
and that it would be peculiarly unbecoming in him to be in any 
way the infractor of them — that the essential principles of free 
government confine the province of the military when called forth 
on such occasions, to these two objects. 

"First — to combat and subdue all who may be found in arms, in 
opposition to the national will and authority. 

"Secondly — to aid and support the civil magistrate in bringing 
offenders to justice. The dispensation of this justice belongs to 
the civil magistrate; and let it ever be our pride and our glory, 
to leave the sacred deposite there, unviolated. 

Convey to my fellow-citizens in arms my warm acknowledge- 
ments for the readiness with which they liave hitherto seconded 
me in the most delicate and momentous duty the chief magistrate 
of a free people can have to perform; and add my affectionate 
wishes for their health, comfort and success. Could my further 
presence with them have been necessary, or compatible with my 
civil duties, at a period when the approaching commencement of a 
session of Congress peculiarly urges me to return to the seat of 
government, it would not have been withheld. In leaving them, I 



48 

have less regret, as I know I commit them to an able and faithful 
direction, and that this direction will be ably and faithfully second- 
ed by all. 

"G. Washington."* 

' It will illustrate this manoeuvre of Mr. Jefferson, in hostility to 
Gen. Washington's reputation and policy, to bring into view his 
own proceedings, in relation to the famous conspiracy of Burr. As 
a preliminary to this comparison, it is to be observed that with 
regard to this individual, as to every other with whom his interests 
came into real or imaginary rivalship, we shall find his language 
double-tongued, and his conduct insincere. You need not be 
reminded that they were competitors for the presidency, in an 
election, which after many ballotings in the House of Representa- 
tives, terminated in the choice of Mr. Jefferson. In his Jlnas, 
(Vol. IV. p. 520,) under the date of January 26th, 1804, he says, "I 
had never seen Col. Burr, till he came as a member of Senate. His 
conduct very soon inspired me with distrust. I habitually cau- 
tioned Mr. Madison against trusting him too much. I saw after- 
wards, that under Gen. Washington's and Mr. Adams' administra- 
tions, whenever a great military appointment or a diplomatic one 
was to be made, he came post to Philadelphia to show himself, and 
in fact that he was always at market, if they had wanted him. He 
was indeed told by Dayton, in 1800, that he might be Secretary at 
War; but this bid was too late. His election as Vice President 
was then foreseen. With these impressions of Col. Burr, there 
never had been any intimacy between us, and but little associa- 
tion." 

These impressions, it would thus appear, bad been conceived as 
far back as Gen. Washington's first administration, and had con- 
tinued through that of Mr. Adams: Mr. Jefferson all this time dis- 
trusting Burr's character, and from an opinion that he was desti- 
tute of principle, avoiding his society. This, it must be confessed, 
is a lofty and disdainful attitude. On the reverse of the medal, 
however, we shall see him prostrate, and profuse in expressing the 
fondest esteem and warmest respect for this same marketable per- 
sonage, after the commencement, and down to the termination of 
the very period assigned for the existence of his suspicious aver- 
sion. In a letter of the 17th June, 1797, from the seat of govern- 
ment, Mr. Jefferson, then Vice President, thus wrote to Col. Burr, 
(Vol. III. p. 356.) "Dear Sir, — The newspapers give so minutely 
what is passing in congress, that nothing in detail can be wanting 
for your information. Perhaps, however, some general view of our 
situation and prospects, since you left us, may not be unacceptable. 
At any rate, it ivill give me an opportunity of recalling myself to 
your mcinory, and of evidencing my esteem for you.''^ After enter- 
taining this estimable correspondent, with his favourite topics, abuse 

* la MSS. 



49 

of the party opposed to theii- common scheme of ambition, and with 
taunts and slander against Gen. Washington, he concludes, — "I 
am, with great and sincere esteem, dear sir, your friend and ser- 
vant." 

On the 15th of December, 1800, when he supposed that the elec- 
toral colleges had returned himself President, and Burr Vice Presi- 
dent, he thus pours forth congratulations and compliments to the 
person whom he professes to have considered deficient in integrity, 
and unworthy of trust, evincing at the same time his respect for 
truth, and for the people to whose confidence he owed his imagined 
triumph. (Vol. III. p. 445.) "While I must congratulate you, my 
dear sir, on the issue of this contest, because it is more honourable, 
and doubtless more grateful to you than any station within the com- 
petence of the chief magistrate, yet for myself, and for the substan- 
tial service of the public, I feel most sensibly the loss we sustain, 
of your aid in our new administration. It leaves a chasm in my 
arrangements, which cannot be adequately filled up. I had en- 
deavoured to compose an administration, whose talents, integrity, 
names, and dispositions, should at once inspire unbounded public 
confidence, and insure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public 
business. I lose you from the list, and am not sure of all the others. 
Should the gentlemen, who possess the public confidence, decline 
taking a part in their affairs, and force us to take persons unknown 
to the people, the evil genius of this country, may realise his avowal, 
that 'he will beat down the administration.'" 

If any thing can exceed the odious posture in which the hypocrisy 
of this letter places its author, it must be the detestation excited 
by supposing it sincere; for then his insinuated distrust against 
Burr, repeated in his Anas, "at a later date," will indicate a still 
more execrable spirit. It is however, in either shape, not more 
despicable than ridiculous. For this outburst of flattery and gratu- 
lation was premature. Burr had received precisely the same electo- 
ral vote that was given to Mr. Jefferson, and the latter was not 
really elected for the station, the patronage of which he is here 
munificently dispensing, until the 19th of the following February. 

But the frowns of aversion, and the smiles of contempt, must 
alike give place to the glow of grief and indignation, at perceiving 
that the man who was just about to fill the oflice of chief magistrate 
of our Republic, could denounce Alexander Hamilton, as "the evil 
genius of the United States:" Alexander Hamilton — a name, that 
no honest American can repeat without gratitude and admiration; 
a man, every exertion of whose intellect was luminous, every throb 
of whose heart was honourable. 

He it was who, through the rudest season of the Revolution — 
when the governor of Virginia yielded his capital, unresistingly, to 
a feeble but cruel invader, his station, ingloriously to the weight of 
a crisis, which would have strung the nerve of a patriot's arm, and 
scampered from hill to hill, before "a plump" of hostile troopers — 



50 

gave Washington the aid of youthful intrepidity in the field of battle, 
and of sage advice in the midnight tentj whose eloquence was as 
fervid as his courage, whose pen as brilliant as his sword, who 
assisted in forming, and excelled in recommending that Govern- 
ment, the chief honour of which Mr. Jefferson was about to wear: 
who, when his country had no credit and but crude resources, drew 
from his own mind, radiant with intelligence as the firmament with 
stars, a system of finance, which complete and efficient, energetic 
and just, from the instant of its production, furnished revenue, and 
established credit; a system which, though opposed, and reprobated, 
and denounced by Mr. Jefterson and his partisans, they could never 
through a domination of twenty-four years, either dispense with, or 
improve. 

He it was, who, while engrossed by the claims of an official sta- 
tion, and fettered by the demands of a laborious profession; with 
the hard-earned wages of which he supported in honour and comfort 
a growing family; in the cabin of an Albany packet that was con- 
veying him to the contention of courts and confusion of clients, 
wrote the first number of the Federalist — laying out the scope of 
that unrivalled political work, which of itself vanquished the ene- 
mies of the Constitution. 

'"Twas on a summer's evening in his tent; 
That day he overcame the Nervii." 

Such was in miniature, the glorious man, whom Mr. Jefferson cursed 
as "the evil genius of his country," whose conduct and motives 
through his whole political life, he never ceased to traduce, and 
whose memory, like that of Gen. Lee, he pursued with slander, 
long after the stimulated vengeance of the very person to whom he 
was now abusing him, had hurried its noble object to a bloody grave. 

To this person he continued to manifest the most respectful 
friendship, as will be seen by a letter of the 1st of February, 1801, 
just before the competition for the Presidency was to be decided by 
the House of Representatives, and when it was desirable not to irri- 
tate Burr or disgust his friends. (Vol. III. p. 449.) 

"Dear Sir, — It was to be expected that the enemy would endea- 
vour to sow tares* between us that they might divide us and our 
friends. Every consideration assures me that you will be on your 
guard against this, as I assure you I am strongly. I hear of one 
stratagem so imposing and so base, that it is proper I should notice 
it to you. Mr. Mumford, who is here, says he saw at New-York 
before he left it, an original letter of mine to Judge Breckenridge, 
in which are sentiments highly injurious to you. He knows my 
hand writing and did not doubt that to be genuine. I inclose you 
a copy taken from the press copy of the only letter I ever wrote 

* His favourite saintly phrase for the introduction of what, to speak indulg- 
ently, may be called a humbitg. 



51 

Judge Breckenridge in my life; the press copy itself has been shown 
to several of our mutual friends here. Of consequence the letter 
seen by Mr. Mumford must have been a forgery, and if it contains 
a sentiment unfriendly or disrespectful to you, I affirm it solemnly 
to be a forgery, as also if it varies from the copy enclosed. With 
the common trash of slander 1 should not think of troubling you, 
but the forgery of one's handwriting is too imposing to be neglected. 
A mutual knowledge of each other furnishes us with the best test of 
the contrivances which will be practised by the enemies of both." 

The difference here in point of fact is between the statements of 
Mr. Mumford, and the press copy, and as Mr. Jefferson himself 
affirms that from the commencement of his acquaintance with Burr, 
he was in the habit of expressing to Mr. Madison his suspicions of 
his honesty, and perceived that he kept himself in the market, it is 
reasonable to suppose that he indulged the same sentiments in let- 
ters to other gentlemen, and that consequently the press copy was 
mistaken. This is the more probable as a similar accident will 
hereafter be pointed out, and as he does not refer Burr to Judge 
Breckenridge, either for a sight of the letter itself or for a copy 
of it. The last sentence however contains the quintessence of 
deceit, where he tells Burr, that by reflecting on their mutual sin- 
cerity and reciprocal respect, he would furnish himself with the 
best possible test for detecting the poison of the mischief-making 
fabrications of their enemies. That is, 'if you hear any thing of me 
inconsistent with honour on my part, and with respect and friend- 
ship for you, you have only to feel assured that it is abase contriv- 
ance of our mutual enemies to sow tares between us. This is the 
reasoning I shall employ, should a similar stratagem be attempted 
on me.' Now only suppose that Mr. Madison had just at this time, 
discovered to Burr one of the "habitual cautions," which he had 
received in regard to him ! 

When, however, in 1807, his friend Burr was arrested on a 
charge of treason, he discovered that he had all along despised 
him, in spite both of his own endearing professions, and of the 
equally cordial eff'usions of his press copy. In a letter to Mr. 
Giles of the 20th of April, 1807, (Vol. IV. p. 74,) he says, 
"Against Burr personally I never had one hostile sentiment. I 
never indeed thought him, an honest frank-dealing man, but con- 
sidered him as a crooked gun, or other perverted machine, whose 
aim or shot you could never be sure of.* 

* From this passage of the text, there can be little doubt that when Arnold's 
detachment marched upon Richmond, Governor Jefferson in the hurry of the 
moment, was led to believe that they had "crooked guns," and consequently 
could not feel "sure" that their shot might not hit him on the other side of 
James river. This reasonable hypothesis, while it accounts for his slipping 
about like quicksilver on the right bank, all the time Arnold was in his Capi- 
tal — a fact which he states without explaining it very clearly — (Vol. IV. pp. 
39, 40,) creates a strong inference in favour of his patriotism, viz: — that but 
for their "perverted machines," he would boldly have attacked the enemy. 



52 

The contrast between these sentiments and those in the JlnaSy 
on the one handj and those in his letters to Burr, — all volunteers, 
not answers — on the other; will be useful in enabling you to com- 
prehend the difference of his style, when speaking to a man he 
hated, and o/'him. It justifies the inference that at the very mo- 
ment he was so grossly traducing Gen. Lee to Gen. Washington, 
declaring that he had never "done him any other injury than that 
of declining his confidences," he would have been glad, had there 
been the least prospect of promoting his own interest by it, to 
encumber him with epistles ?i\\d press co/)ies of homage and attach- 
ment. 

Of the object of the conspiracy, his conduct in regard to which 
is now to be compared with that pursued in quelling the Western 
insurrection, he gives the following account in a letter of the 2nd 
of April, 1807, to our minister in Spain, (Vol. IV. p. 71,) "Al- 
though at first he proposed a separation of the Western country, 
and on that ground received encouragement and aid from Yrujo, 
according to the usual spirit of his government towards us, yet he 
very early saw that the fidelity of the Western country was not to 
be shaken, and turned himself wholly towards Mexico." And in 
the letter to Mr. Giles of the 20th, he thus describes the points of 
treason he expects to be established, by witnesses whose testimony 
he affirms "will satisfy the world, if not the Judge, of Burr's guilt" 
— "And I do suppose the following overt acts will be proved. 1. 
The enlistment of men in a regular way. 2. The regular mount- 
ing of guard round Blennerhasset's island when they discovered 
Governor Tiffin's men to be on them, modo guerrino arriaii. 3. 
The rendezvous of Burr with his men at the mouth of Cumber- 
land. 4. His letter to the acting Governor of Mississippi holding 
up the prospect of civil war. 5. His capitulation regularly signed 
with the aids of the Governor, as between two independent hostile 
commanders." 

These acts, he says, amount incontestably to treason. Yet the 
attack of five hundred armed men, on the house of the inspector 
of the revenue, and a detachment of the troops of the United States 
— the burning the inspector's house and forcing an officer of the 
United States Army, to march out and surrender — the shooting at 
the marshal with intent to kill him, while in the execution of his 
duty — the seizing and violating the mail of the United States on its 
passage to the seat of government — the arrest and intimidation of 
the marshal — the banishment of those citizens of Pittsburg, who 
were suspected of allegiance to their country — open resistance to 
the laws, and defiance of the government — the rejection of an 
ottered amnesty — the preparation of a force of 7,000 men to wage 
war against the United States, and to effect ultimately a dissolu- 
tion of the Union — all these revolting outrages, in the comparative 
infancy of the government, when they were levelled at the peace 
and dignity of the nation, through the fame and feelings of Presi- 



53 

dent Washington, Mr. Jefferson considered as nearly harmless, as 
provoked by "an infernal law," and as at most, merely "riotous 
transactions!!" 

The force with which Burr was to accomplish his designs, he 
estimates as follows, in a letter of the 14th of July, 180r, to Gen. 
La Fayette, (Vol. IV. p. 97.) "Burr had probably engaged one 
thousand men to follow his fortunes, without letting them know 
his projects, otherwise than by assuring them the government ap- 
proved of them. The moment a proclamation issued undeceiving 
them, he found himself left with about thirty desperadoes only." 
This conspirator, with his gang of thirty followers, however, was 
too formidable to be left unpunished, whether in due course of law 
or not, and therefore the President of the United States descended 
from his station, and took the lead in hunting him down. 

Accordingly, on the 2nd of June, 1807, he opened a corre- 
spondence with the District Attorney of the United States, (Vol. 
IV. pp. 75 to 103,) which for indecency to the court, disrespect 
for the independence of a co-ordinate department, outrage upon 
the sanctity of justice, and cruelty to the prisoner, was never 
exceeded by the executive authority of any nation, in any age. 
After saying to Mr. Hay, "while Burr's case is depending before 
the court, I will trouble you from time to time with what occurs 
to me," — he proceeds to counsel him as to the management of 
various stages of the prosecution, inspiring him all the while with 
distrust of the purity of the court before which he was pleading, 
until the 19th of June, when he makes a suggestion, the wicked- 
ness of which cannot be adequately expressed in any language but 
his own, (p. 86.) "I inclose you the copy of a letter received last 
night, and giving singular information. I have inquired into the 
character of Graybell. He was an old revolutionary captain, is 
now a flour merchant in Baltimore, of the most respectable charac- 
ter, and whose word would be taken as implicitly as any man's for 
whatever he affirms. The letter writer also is a man of entire 
respectability. I am well informed that for more than a twelve- 
month it has been believed in Baltimore, generally, that Burr was 
engaged in some criminal enterprise, and that Luther Martin knew 
all about it. We think you should immediately despatch a sub- 
poena for Graybell; and while that is on the road, you will have 
time to consider in whatform you will use his testimony: e. g. shall 
Luther Martin be summoned as a witness against Burr, and Gray- 
bell held ready to confront him? It may be doubted whether we 
could examine a witness to discredit our own witness. Besides, 
the lawyers say that they are privileged from being forced* to 
breaches of confidence, and that no others are. Shall we move to 
commit Luther Martin, as particeps criminis with Burr.'' Gray- 
bell will fix upon him suspicion of treason at least. And at any 
rate, his testimony will put down this unprincipled and impudent 
federal bull-dog, and add another proof that the most clamorous 



54 

defenders of Burr are all his accomplices. It will explain why 
Luther Martin flew so hastily to the aid of his 'honourable friend,' 
abandoning his clients and their property during the session of a 
principal court in Maryland, now filled, as I am told, with the 
clamours and ruin of his clients." 

You perceive from this that a general belief, reported to exist in 
Baltimore, of Burr's having meditated an unlawful enterprise, of 
some sort or other, and that Luther Martin knew all about it; with 
the second hand assertion that this knowledge could be proved by a 
third person, was cause sufficient in the humane and philosophic 
mind of Mr. Jefferson, to fix the stigma of treason on Luther Mar- 
tin, by arresting him as particeps criminis with the prisoner he was 
defending. And if this unjust proceeding should fail of every 
other eft'ect, it would at least have the happy one "of putting down 
this unprincipled and impudent federal bull-dog" — that is, it would 
silence him as an advocate for Burr — would deprive the prisoner 
of the assistance of the counsel on whom he peculiarly relied in a 
trial for his life, and thus expose him to all the violence and strata- 
gem that the zeal of lawyers and the unbridled hate of the Execu- 
tive could impart to the prosecution. Had this cruel project been 
fulfilled, Burr would have stood like Bothwell, his sword-arm 
broken and his dagger lost, while his blood-thirsty and hypocritical 
adversary, represented by the President, brandished his impatient 
blade aloft, and plunged it to the hilt in his body. 

In unison with this unparalleled mixture of craft and inhumani- 
ty, more fit for the cells of the Spanish Inquisition than for an 
American court of justice, is his resentment at the zeal with which 
Mr. Martin undertook the defence of a man, who, though accused, 
was yet unconvicted, was under the legal presumption of innocence, 
had been dear to Martin as a friend, and had, moreover, a right, 
on the usual conditions, to his services. The whole correspon- 
dence with Mr. Hay, is of this cast, diversified occasionally with 
promises of new witnesses, and interspersed towards the close of 
the trial with insinuations against the integrity of the court; leav- 
ing but one doubt as to the disposition of President Jefferson at 
the time, that is, whether he was more eager to hang the judge or 
the criminal.* 

[♦ No part of the conduct of Mr. Jefferson's administration showed its inca- 
pacity to meet any great emergency more clearly than its conduct in relation 
to this contemptible project of Burr. Mr. Tucker admits (Vol. II. p. 230,) that 
"There is indeed much connected with this project and its prosecution," (to 
witi the legal proceedings against Burr,) "on which we cannot look back 
without regret and even mortification;" and says, "however natural and ex- 
cusable in the great bulk of his (Mr. Jefferson's) party" was "the misplaced 
zeal" it manifested, "it is to be wished that he had been superior" to it. But 
to show the consternation into which the administration and its most promi- 
nent supporters in Congress were thrown, or, what would be worse, the tyran- 
nical spirit which animated them, let it be remembered, that though Mr. 
Jefferson knew and communicated to Congress, the 22nd of January, 1807, 



55 

Now, if we look back to President Washington, whose influence 
in our public counsels, he had deprecated and decried, in a letter to 

that Burr had descended the Cumberland, just a month before, with but two 
boats, being disappointed in obtaining the quota of men calculated on from 
Tennessee — that the fugitives of his party from Ohio, with their associates 
from Cumberland or elsewhere, could not threaten serious danger to New 
Orleans — that the public authorities had been seconded every where in the 
West "by the zeal and spirit of the inhabitants, and that Burr would receive 
no aid from any foreign power, yet the very next day a bill for suspending the 
habeas corpus was reported to the Senate by Messrs. Giles, of Virginia, Adams, 
of Massachusetts, and Smith, of Maryland, in behalf of their committee, hur- 
ried through that body," "and forthwith communicated to the other House in 
confidence with a request of its speedy concurrence." But the spirit of the 
American people embodied there could not go it, but rejected almost unani- 
mously the work of the Senate. The conduct of the minority in that body 
upon this occasion, may be explained and excused on the ground of reluctance 
to embarrass the administration in a measure, to justify which it had peculiar 
means of obtaining, and must have been supposed to possess, adequate intelli- 
gence. But what must we think of the fitness of men for such a government 
as this, who, to suppress such a project as Burr's, with a full knowledge of his 
insignificant resources, resorted to the removal, however temporary, of a 
monument of liberty so dear to the whole Anglo-Saxon race, as the writ of 
habeas corpus? If they were thrown into consternation by such an affair as 
Burr got up, what would have been their predicament in a really dangerous 
crisis'? Or is it rather to be supposed that because of three persons whom 
Wilkinson had arrested as emissaries of Burr, one had been discharged by 
habeas corpus, the suspension of that writ was (designed to deprive Bollmann 
and Swartwout of its benefit, who were brought as state-criminals that very 
evening to Washington, and who were soon discharged under it? It is left to 
the^admirers of Mr. Jefferson to choose between the horns of this dilemma. 
For the facts stated, see Tucker's Life of Jefferson, Vol. II. p. 216. 

If Mr. Jefferson's violence against Burr is the more to be condemned because 
of former friendship, it is also the less excusable because of Mr. Jefferson's 
approbation of rebellions generally. His correspondence about the time of 
Shay's rebellion contains no censure of those insurgents, which I remember. 
On the contrary, he says to Col. Smith, in a letter dated November 13, 1787 — 
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion!" — 
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or twol The tree of liberty must 
be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is 
its natural manure." The readeri will find an account of this rebellion in 
Marshall's Life of Washington, Vol. V. p. 114. Gen. Knox, then Secretary 
at War, computed the force of the party engaged in it at 12 or 15,000 men. 
"Desperate and unprincipled, they would probably commit overt acts of trea- 
son which would compel them to embody and submit to discipline. Thus 
would there be a formidable rebellion against reason, the principle of all go- 
vernment, and the very name of liberty." 

Gen. Washington, when informed of the state of affairs on the theatre of 
this insurrection, exclaims, "Good God! who besides a tory could have fore- 
seen, or a Briton have predicted them!" Col. Lee, then in Congress, informed 
him that "the malecontents are in close connexion with Vermont, and that 
district, it is believed, is in negotiation with the government of Canada.. In 
one word, my dear General, we are all in dire apprehension that a beginning 
of anarchy, with all its calamities, is made." 

As the confusion increased, the father of his country, more and more morti- 
fied at the clouds accumulating over "the brightest morn (to use his own 
words) that ever dawned upon any country," thus unbosoms himself to Col. 
Humphries — "What, gracious God, is man! that there should be such incon- 
sistency and perfidiousness in his conduct. It is but the other day that we 



56 

this very Col. Burr,* to the period when the western insurrection 
was suppressed, and the heads of that conspiracy, who had not fled 
the country, were placed at the bar of justice, do we find Wash- 
ington stimulating the zeal, complicating the chicanery, or sharp- 
ening the Shylock weapons of the prosecution; do we find him 
looking out tor witnesses, collecting imputations, proposing to 
muzzle the prisoner's counsel, or "to heap coals of fire on the head 
of the judge?" (p. 103. ) No! his sentiments and conduct were 
honourable to his country, suitable to his station, and agreeable to 
the lustre of his unclouded virtues. "The dispensation of this jus- 
tice," said he, in reference to the insurgents, "belongs to the civil 
magistrate," (that is the judge) "and let it be our pride and our 
glory, to leave the sacred deposit, there unviolated." 

In a spirit of mercy congenial with this exalted justice, he par- 
doned the two offenders who were convicted of treason; and the 
danger of the crisis being over, had the prosecutions in other cases 

were shedding our blood to obtain the constitutions under which we now live; 
— constitutions of our own choice and making: — and now we are unsheathing 
the sword to overturn them!" 

The sword was unsheathed. The insurgents attempted to dislodge Gen. 
Shepard from the arsenal at Springfield, but were repulsed with loss, and the 
celerity of Gen. Lincoln's movements at the head of 4,000 men in the depth of 
a northern winter, suppressed the rebellion, though not without the effusion of 
blood. Yet such an insurrection, aimed at the very existence of a large and 
important portion of the confederacy, so alarming and agonizing to the great 
and patriotic minds of the country, Mr. Jefferson wishes for the recurrence of 
every twenty years at least; while to secure and expedite the punishment of a 
few vagabonds, whose wild projects had already been prostrated, he is for sus- 
pending the great writ of habeas corpus; though the power of the general 
government to do this under any circumstances, formed one of his objections 
to the constitution! (See Tucker's Life, Vol. I. p. 254.) 

Verily it would seem that Mr. Burke was right, when, in reference to the 
Jeffersonian school of politicians he said, "A cheap bloodless reformation, a 
guiltless liberty, appear flat and vapid to their taste." (Reflections of French 
Rev., Vol. III. p. 81.) 

Consequently it is not wonderful if it be true, (as was asserted in a publica- 
tion of the day, which, though breathing too much party passion, contains 
much wisdom, eloquence and truth,) "that in three insurrections, and two 
conspiracies to give up the territories of the United States into the hands of a 
foreign nation, all of which occurred in the very childhood of the republic, 
and within the compass of twenty years, not one being was concerned but 
those who made the party of Mr. Jefferson." (See Memoirs of Jefferson, pub- 
lished in 1809, Vol. II. p. 230.] 

* "I had always hoped, that the popularity of the late President being once 
withdrawn from active effect, the natural feelings of the people towards liberty 
■would restore the equilibrium between the executive and legislative depart- 
ments, which had been destroyed by the superior weight and effect of that 
popularity; and that their natural feelings of moral obligation would discoun- 
tenance the ungrateful predilection of the Executive, in favour of Great 
Britain. Bat unfortunately, the preceding measures had already alienated the 
nation who were the object of them, had excited re-action from them, and this 
re-action has, on the minds of our citizens, an eflect which supplies that of the 
Washington popularity." Letter to Col. Burr, June lltk, 1797, (Vol. III. pp. 
357, 358.) 



57 

dismissed. And in the same spirit, Gen. Lee replied to certain 
individuals, who proposed to pursue Bradford into the territory of 
Spain, and bring him back for punishment, that the dignity of the 
laws was vindicated by his flight from their authority, and that he 
could never countenance a proposal which had for its object, "the 
hunting an American citizen to death." 

Admonished by the length of this letter, I refrain from pressing 
any further at this time on your patience. Repair your attention, 
however, for by the next opportunity you may count upon receiv- 
ing the conclusion of my remarks on the pregnant epistle to Mr. 
Madison. 



LETTER IV. 

Should your good nature revolt at the vindictive appearance of 
the examination, through the perplexities of which I am endeavour- 
ing to guide you, I have little to soothe it with, but an expression 
of my regret, or to relieve it by, but an appeal to your justice. If 
Mr. Jefferson's character is now for the first time to be displayed 
in its true light, and to be divested of the folds of artifice and 
delusion, in which he disguised it, it is only because he painted in 
false and opprobrious colours that of others; and though it be, 
when thus exposed, a subject of unpleasing contemplation, it may 
prove a useful and instructive study. In the system of the moral 
world, it seems to be established by Providence, that injustice 
done to our neighbour, should sooner or later recoil on ourselves. 
And naturalists tell us, that although, at first sight, the history of 
the lion appears more entertaining than that of all other beasts, yet 
that on close inspection, more vivid curiosity and agreeable won- 
der are excited by the structure of the spider — that sly insect, 
which — 

"Throned on the centre of his thin designs, 
Proud of a vast extent of flimsy lines," 

entangles and destroys the bold hornet and the blossom-loving bee. 
Pursuing then the analysis of this envenomed letter to Mr. 
Madison, let us pass from its palpable injustice towards Gen. 
Washington and Gen. Lee, to the consideration of its main design, 
which is both concealed, and betrayed by an artifice, not unlike 
the trick of an Indian juggler. The object of all Mr. Jeft'erson's 
schemes and movements, of his friendships and hatreds, his slan- 
ders and praises; of that philosophy, for worship in the sanctuary 



58 

of which, he would have the world believe he was predestined by 
nature, (Vol. IV. p. 126, et passim,) of his wiis-quotation from the 
Georgics, (Vol. III. p. 337,) his "mould-board of least resistance;" 
(p. 334,) of that retirement which was so profound, that lest it 
should be unnoticed, he proclaimed it in all directions, as the 
Irishman was to whistle when he should fall asleep; the real object 
of all these professions, passions, pretensions, and manoeuvres, was 
the office of President. For this he deserted the Cabinet of Wash- 
ington, against the entreaties of that illustrious man; and having 
got into a private station, for this, he was now wriggling and stretch- 
ing to get out of it. To Mr. Madison, whose powerful aid was 
indispensable, he was holding out his hand for help. 

In disparaging and traducing Gen. Washington so industrious- 
ly, his intention was not to supplant him; for besides that he could 
neither have desired nor hoped to compete with him before the 
people, he knew the General was now in his second and last official 
term. But his design was by curtailing the influence of his name 
and opinions, to change the course of succession, which, should 
that influence be left unimpaired, the sense of the nation would 
probably give to the Chief Magistracy — devolving it first on 
Adams, whom he disliked, next on Hamilton, whom he hated; 
whose superiority in the Cabinet he had felt and still resented;* 
whose ready eloquence, cogent I'easoning, practical views, ascen- 
dant genius, martial spirit, and generous character, rebuked and 
foiled his own subtle sagacity, pusillanimous temper, and indirect 
ambition.t 

* "As to my participating in the administration, if by that, he (Mr, Adams) 
"meant the executive Cabinet, both duty and inclination will shut that door to 
me. I cannot have a wish to see the scenes of 1793, revived as to myself, and 
to descend daily into the arena, like a gladiator, to sulfer martyrdom in every 
conflict."— To Mr. Madison Jan. 22nd, 1797. (Vol. III. pp. 346, 347.) 

[t But Mr. Tucker does not agree with Sir Hudibras in thinking, 

"That we are best of all led to 
Men's principles by what they do:^' 

For though he records Mr. Jefferson's political activity, says, "It would seem 
that no course could have been more prudent, if political advancement had 
been Mr. Jefferson's object, than that which he took in withdrawing from 
public affairs" (Vol. I. p. 470) — And further records, that "the gratification 
afforded him by the second office in the nation, and the almost equal vote for 
the first, had on his happy temper the effect of putting him in" such "a good 
humour with all the world," that in the overflow of his heart he wrote such a 
letter to Mr. Adams, that Mr. Madison, through whom it Avas sent, withheld 
it, as certain to have no other effect upon Mr. Adams, "than to make him 
question either the sincerity or self-respect of the writer," (Vol. II. p. 14.) 
Though he slates that Mr. Jefferson's pecuniary resources were miich exhaust- 
ed in pulling down and rebuilding "for the correction of some unforeseen de- 
fect, or in execution of some happier after-thought," his house at Monticello, "to 
give his countrymen a better speciinen of architectural skill," than we had in 
Virginia — made "the salary attached to the ofiice not insignificant in his 
eyes," (Vol. II. p. 13) — And though he had recorded Mr. Jefferson's sugges- 
tions, made as soon as he had reached this second office in the government, 



59 

As it was to be supposed that Mr. Madison was apprised of Gen. 
Washington's wish to appoint him Secretary of State, and for that 
and other reasons, retained a degree of kindness and respect for him, 
there was room to apprehend that his sense of justice would revolt 
at the gross and virulent detraction, which Mr. Jefferson, in execu- 
tion of one part of his scheme, had thought proper to hazard. There- 
fore as physicians expel one poison from the body, by the introduc- 
tion of a more energetic one, the sage of Monticello proceeded to 
counteract the occurrence of remorse, by means of those never-failing 
agents, vanity and ambition. While urging Mr. Madison to perse- 
vere in his meritorious opposition, and foretelling that a change of 
men and measures was soon to take place, he encroached so far on 
the ♦ 'double delicacy" of himself, and the simple modesty of his 
friend, as to insist that if he does retire, it must only be "to a more 
splendid and a more efficacious post;" for which, by the way, by 
an evolution peculiar to his own tactics, he had himself retired. 
The heartfelt joy this promotion of Mr. Madison over his own head 
would give him, may be better conceived than described; steeped 
as he lay in the charms of a "retirement," wliich he protests he 
"would not give up for the empire of the universe." 

Nothing could be more skilful than this move. Like that of a 
knight at chess, it placed in check King, Queen and Castle, all at 
once. It told the opposition that it was time to bring forward 
determinedly a candidate for the Presidency. It said to Mr. 



"to come to a good understanding" with Mr. Adams, (that Mr. Adams whom 
he had all along denounced as a monarchist!) to prevent the succession of 
Hamilton, or in other words, to insure his own (last page of Vol. I.) — yet he, 
Mr. Tucker, thinks it "altogether unreasonable to question the sincerity" of 
Mr. Jefferson's many and various asseverations of his resolution to accept no 
more public employments, and of his love of retirement, which, we have seen, 
he said he would not give up for the empire of the universe! However, Mr. 
Jefferson himself says, (as Mr. Tucker records. Vol. II. p. 16,) "I cannot help 
thinking that it is impossible for Mr. Adams to believe that the state of my 
mind is what it really is. * * * I have no supernatural power to impress 
truth in the mind of another, nor he any to discover that the estimate which 
he may form, on a just view of the human mind, as generally constituted, may 
not be just in its application to a special constitution." Now as no human 
being has this supernatural power, which Mr. Jefferson here seems to assert 
to be necessary to the discovery of his sincerity, on this subject of the presi- 
dency, we may be all excused for dissenting from Mr. Tucker's faith in it; 
which, in this case, is not only "the evidence of things not seen," but of a thing 
which, without supernatural gifts, never can be seen. 

For further evidence of the solemnity with which he affirmed that by 
"retirement from office" had been meant from all office, high or low, without 
exception — and that "the question was for ever closed" with him — see his let- 
ter to Mr. Madison, Vol. III. p. 311, of his Writings, — and which is abridged. 
Vol. I. p. 495, in Tucker's Life of him — and remark how little his own party 
regarded his most solemn declarations on this subject. For in. defiance of 
ihem, they run him for president; and in proof of how well they knew their 
man, we have seen that though he missed the first place, (to which he was 
reconciled by the most unpatriotic motives, if we may believe him or his 
biographer— see pages above cited,) he jumped with joy into the second.] 



60 

Madison, "as I have proposed you for this post, you cannot do less 
than support me, upon that principle of seniority* and civility, 
which would be observed were we to come together at the entrance 
of a drawing room." It suppressed any scruples that a gentleman 
might feci at entering into an alliance founded on injustice to the 
father of his country, by overshadowing his judgment with clouds 
of vain incense and visions of future greatness, through which Mr. 
Jefferson's election could not but appear as previous and instru- 
mental to his own elevation; and it conformed apparently with that 
rural seclusion which the artless philosopher loved as dearly as he 
did his friend Col. Burr, and was as willing to forsake. 

These advantages of the manoeuvre, were not counterbalanced by 
a single inconvenience. There was not the slightest chance of Mr. 
Madison's superseding him, for besides that he was a man of per- 
sonal modesty and of comparatively mild ambition, Mr. Jefferson, 
was entitled by pre-occupancy, to the head of the opposition; to 
precedence, by superior age, and the high diplomatic and executive 
stations he had tilled, to the duties of which Mr. Madison was yet 
a stranger. Had it been in his wish therefore to put himself before 
Mr. Jefterson, it would not have been in his power. Mr. Madison's 
situation and character at the time, in short, render it a moral cer- 
tainty, that Mr. Jefferson's professing a wish to see his election, 
was simply an expedient to promote his own. 

In tracing his correspondence up to the 19th of June, 1796, when 
he wrote the letter in vulgar abuse of Gen. Lee, and cruel humbug 
of Gen. Washington, I shall not stop to notice those in which he 
exasperates the zeal of Mr. Giles's opposition; encourages and 
counsels that of Mr. Madison; hails the appearance of an inconsi- 
derable demagogue in Pennsylvania as "an acquisition upon which 
he congratulates republicanism;" caricatures by a most invidious 
'criticism one of the President's messages to Congress, and by lec- 
turing Mr, Rutledge of Carolina, on the debt of public service he 
had left unpaid to the nation by his retirement from political life, 
endeavours to provoke a reciprocation of that grateful reproach. 

These I shall pass by, as subordinate stratagems in his grand 
design, at once exposed by and exposing it, in order to examine his 
strictures on the next in succession and importance of President 
Washington's measures — the treaty of amity, commerce and navi- 
gation, concluded with the government of Great Britain, on the 
19th of November, 1794, by our envoy Mr. Jay. 

^ * This principle of seniority is most carefully impressedonMr. Madison, in a 
subsequent letter (p. 340,) in which, on finding that he had been out-voted by 
Mr. Adams, he states his reasons for being highly delighted with his own dis- 
appointment! "But as to Mr. Adams particularly, I could have no feelings 
thai would revolt at being placed in a secondary station to him. I am his junior 
in life, I was his junior in Congress, his junior in the diplomatic line, and 
lately his junior in our civil government." Every shot in this voile)' of Juniors, 
went through and through Mr. Madison's pretensions to rivalship or pre- 
cedence. 



61 

A sketch has already been attempted of our political parties, 
from their rise to the period at which Mr. Jefferson took his place 
at the head of Gen. Washington's cabinet. And it was then 
observed that occasions very soon presented themselves for such 
differences of opinion as were likely to be discovered by sects so 
oppositely constituted. But in the nature of our new relations 
with Great Britain, causes of peculiar excitement and discussion 
were found. 

Washington and the great body of his political friends readily 
passed from real war to genuine peace, in conformity with the 
solemn assurance given to the world in the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, that the citizens of the United States would thenceforth 
hold the British nation like the rest of mankind, "enemies in war, 
in peace friends." This promise they could well afford to fulfil, 
having signalized both their opposition to England, and love for 
their own country, their impatience of tyranny and devotion to 
freedom in the painful marches and bloody conflicts of a seven 
years' war. With the return of peace, to the minds of such men 
returned the sentiments belonging to it — justice, moderation, 
amity, good faith, and all those fair dispositions that lead to the 
mutual advantage of nations. 

When, therefore, from the unavoidable delay which occurre;,d on 
our part in executing that article of the treaty of peace which 
stipulated for the payment by our citizens of a description of debts 
due to the subjects of Great Britain, that government refused to 
surrender, in conformity with conditions in the same treaty, cer- 
tain military posts on the southern margin of the great lakes, they 
used their utmost exertions to have our side of the covenant strictly 
performed, in order to secure the right dependant on it. In the 
same temper they endeavoured to preserve an exact neutrality in 
the war between France and England, and preferred negotiation 
with both belligerents, as long as it could be honourably maintain- 
ed, to war against either, as the means of repairing the actual, and 
preventing the future injury, to which our commerce was exposed 
by their collision. 

As the opposite party had not expended their animosity in the 
generous trade of war, much of it remained on the conclusion of 
peace; and as they had not been able to demonstrate their zeal in 
the revolution by such bold and patriotic evidences, as Gen. Wash- 
ington and his followers had exhibited, they sought now to display 
it by an unseasonable hostility towards Great Britain. In this 
spirit they insinuated that the endeavours of the administration to 
execute faithfully the treaty of peace, and to establish a commer- 
cial intercourse with England, manifested, with other of their mea- 
sures, a monarchical tendency in their counsels, if not a design to 
replace us under the dominion of the British Crown. To colour 
these imputations they alleged that our resistance to the encroach- 
ments of France evinced a secret partiality for England — incon- 
8 



62 

sistent with the gratitude due to her rival, and the sympathy which 
one republic ought to feel for another. 

Those against whom these accusations were directed, did not 
fail, in repelling them, to assert that they proceeded from politi- 
cians unduly partial to France, dishonourably insensible to the 
rights and dignity of their own country, and willing to gratify their 
lust of power, at the expense of her character and interest. 

It thus occurred that a habit was engrafted on the public mind 
of regarding the measures of Government less as they aftected our 
own prosperity, than as they seemed likely to bear upon one or 
other of these antagonist nations — a habit, which, by the machina- 
nations and predominance of Mr. Jefferson, among other conse- 
quences, encouraged that fond injustice and affectionate inferiority, 
with which, in a more or less insolent shape, we have been since 
regarded by the successive governments of France. 

This being the disposition of the ins and outs — the one deter- 
mined to condemn any connexion with Great Britain which did 
not secure, not only all our rights but all our pretensions, and not 
only all that we pretended to, but every thing that we wished for — 
the other compelled to choose between the calamity of a war, and 
the convenience of the best agreement, which, under existing cir- 
cumstances they could negotiate; it is not surprising that the ratifi- 
cation of Jav's treaty, in which the concessions and advantages of 
the contracting powers, were pretty equally balanced, gave occa- 
sion to much discontent and violent censure. 

In inffaming this discontent and exacerbating this censure, no 
one took more pains than Mr. Jefferson. In a letter to Mann 
Page (Vol. III. p. 314,) declining attendance at the exhibition of a 
village academy, he digresses to the subject of the treaty, and 
takes occasion from it to sneer most indecently at the President. 
In a letter to Mr. Madison on the next page (21st Sept. 1795,) 
urging him to answer a piece which Hamilton had published in 
explanation of the advantages of the treaty, he states his opinion 
of it in the following words — "It certainly is an attempt of a party, 
who find they have lost their majority in one branch of the legisla- 
ture, to make a law by the aid of the other branch, and of the 
Executive, under colour of a treaty, which shall bind up the hands 
of the adverse branch, from ever restraining the commerce of their 
patron nation." This objection implies, not that any right of the 
United States had been sacrificed or interest neglected, but that 
the commerce of Great Britain was not to be restrained. As to 
the word ever, the violence of its misapplication can be conceived 
only by reflecting that the treaty in its principal articles was limit- 
ed expressly to ten years. 

In the same letter he tells Mr. Madison that a number of Hamil- 
ton's pieces had been sent to him, with an answer by a Mr. Beck- 
ley; and that he gave these, "the poison and the antidote, to honest 
sound-hearted men of common understanding," by way of experi- 



63 

ment. Finding that Hamilton's pieces, in spite of Beckley's 
answer, produced conviction on the minds of these honest com- 
mon-sense citizens, he adds with rare simplicity, "I have ceased 
therefore to give them" — showing that this advocate for the diffu- 
sion of knowledge, for "leaving reason free to combat error of opi- 
nion," had no scruple in suppressing arguments however clear and 
convincing, if at variance with his own interested views. It does 
not appear that Mr. Madison could be induced to enter the lists in 
this controversy, finding it probably more easy to join Mr. Jeffer- 
son in reprobating the treaty, than to oppose Hamilton's logic in 
its defence. 

After writing to Mr. Rutledge of Carolina, (Vol. III. p. 317,) "I 
trust the popular branch of the legislature will disapprove of it, and 
thus rid us of this infamous act, which is really nothing more than 
a treaty of alliance between England and the Anglomen of this 
country, against the legislature and people of the United States" — 
to Mr. Monroe, (p. 324,) that it was "a case palpably atrocious" — 
he thus pours out, in a letter of the 27th March, 1796, to Mr. 
Madison, then in his seat in congress, the full tide of his maledic- 
tions, upon the treaty and the President, (p. 324. ) "If you decide in 
favour of your right to refuse co-operation in any case of treaty, I 
should wonder on vvhat occasion it is to be used, if not in one where 
the rights, the interests, the honour and faith of our nation are so 
grossly sacrificed; where a faction has entered into a conspiracy 
with the enemies of their country to chain down the legislature at 
the feet of both: where the whole mass of your constituents have 
condemned the work in the most unequivocal manner, and are 
looking to you as their last hope to save them from the effects of 
the avarice and corruption of the first agent, the revolutionary 
machinations of others, and the incomprehensible acquiescence of 
the only honest man, who has assented to it. 1 wish that his honesty 
and his political errors, may not furnish a second occasion to ex- 
claim, 'curse on his virtues, they have undone his country.'" 

You will perceive that in all this tirade, not a single argument 
is advanced against the ratification of the treaty, nor a solitary 
objection specified to any one of its stipulations. This aspiring 
statesman who from recent correspondence with Mr. Hammond, 
the British minister in the United States, and with Mr. Pinckney 
the American minister in London, was aware of the difficulties in 
the way of any agreement on the subject of our commercial inter- 
course with England — who had himself been frustrated in feeling 
his way to a negotiation in regard to it;* now when a convention 



* In an official letter from London, he thus impresses on Mr. Jay his opinion 
of the difficulty and almost impossibility of making a commercial treaty of any 
description with England — and perhaps Mr. Jay was indebted for a portion of 
this acrimony to having disappointed the following positive and prophetical 
declarations. (Vol. 11. p. 4.) "With this country nothing is done, and that 



64 

had been negotiated by a gentleman of acknowledged abilities and 
patriotism, and ratified by the constituted authorities of the coun- 
try, denounces the treaty, abuses its negotiator, and vilifies the 
illustrious citizen who sanctioned it, in all directions and in the 
most unqualified terms, without favouring his correspondents or his 
country with a single tangible objection to it. Had he discovered 
a clause of mischievous tendency, was it not his duty to point it 
out to the President, whom he admitted to be an honest man, or to 
the people who he knew would be prompt and fearless in maintain- 
ing the country's character and rights. The friendship and confi- 
dence of Washington which he still enjoyed required this of him as 
a man of honour — the offices of trust and dignity to which the 
people had elevated him, required this of him as a good citizen. 
There was ample tinie for the most deliberate counsel to the Presi- 
dent, or to the nation. The treaty, though received by the govern- 
ment on the 7th of March, 1795, and approved by the senate on the 
24th of June, was not even conditionally ratified by the President, 
until the I2th of August,* such deep and anxious meditation did 
that wise and virtuous man bestow on it.t 



nothing is intended to be done, on their pari, admits not of the smallest doubt. 
The nation is against any change of measures: the ministers are against it; 
some from principle, others from subserviency: and the King, more than all 
men, is against it. If we take a retrospect to the beginning of this reign, we 
observe, that amidst all the changes of ministry, no change of measures with 
respect to America ever took place; excepting only at the moment of the peace; 
and the ministry of that moment was immediately removed. Judging of the 
future by the past, I do not expect a change of disposition during the present 
reign, which bids fair to be a long one, as the King is healthy and temperate. 
That he is persevering, we know. If he ever changes his plan, it will be in 
consequence of events, which, at present, neither himself nor his ministers 
place among those which are probable. Even the opposition dare not open 
their lips in favour of a Convention with us, so unpopular would be the topic. 
It is not, that they think our commerce unimportant to them. I find that the 
merchants have set sufficient value on it; but they are sure of keeping it on 
their own terms. No better proof can he shown of the secnrity, in which the 
ministers think themselves, on this head, than that they have not thought it 
worth while to give us a conference on the subject, though, on my arrival, we 
exhibited to them our commission, observed to them that it would expire on the 
12th of the next month, and that 1 had come over on purpose to see if any 
arrangements could be made before that time. Of two months which then 
remained, six weeks have elapsed without one scrip of a pen, or one word 
from a minister, except a vague proposition at an accidental meeting. We 
availed ourselves even of that, to make another essay to extort some .«ort of 
declaration from the court. But their silence is invincible." With these 
emphatical and discouraging assurances in his pocket, or on his memory, Mr. 
Jay must have thought he would receive the thanks of Mr. Jefferson for bring- 
ing about a commercial treaty on almost any terms with Great Britain. But 
more especially had he a right to count on the.se thanks as his was the best 
commercial treaty we have ever had with that country — unless Mr. M'Lane's 
late treaty be as good a one. 

* Marshall, Vol. V. pp. Cl(5, 17, and 33. 

t Washington thusdescribes in a letter to Gen. Knox, the state of mind under 
which he ratified Jay's treaty. It breathes the purest patriotism in the most 



65 

But to exaggerate, not to correct, errors, in Washington's ad- 
ministration was Mr. Jefferson's object — and of course as he knew 
him to be an honest man, it would have been in total opposition to 
his policy, openly to warn the country of danger, or honestly to 
guard the President against mistake. Accordingly he preferred 
agitating surreptitiously the popular mind, through such leaders of 
public opinion as were disposed to second his schemes, by misre- 
presentations of motives and consequences — which being, these 
unborn, and those invisible, were susceptible of the most violent 
and licentious distortion. 

By the treaty which is here so vehemently execrated, we ob- 
tained among other advantages, the cession of the military posts, 
south of the Lakes, and the consequent power of repressing the 
savage hostilities, which were annually draining us of blood and 
treasure; and we placed our commerce with Great Britain and her 
colonies on a footing which led to an immediate and unparalleled 
increase of our trade, tonnage and revenue.* 

It is true Mr. Jay could not obtain a stipulation against impress- 
ment. But were he and Gen. Washington to blame for this? As 
he wrote to the President, the terms were the best he could obtain 
— *to do more was impossible.' Were they to have declined such 
terms, because one or two points were left unsettled, and thus de- 
prive the country, for remote or unattainable objects, of palpable 
and present benefits. Because these great patriots determined to 
secure the advantages within their reach, and to leave for future 
settlement the subject of impressment, was it just that Washing- 
ton should be denounced as a second Caesar, ready to cleave to the 
earth, by the force of popular virtues, the liberty of his country; 
and Jay as a corrupt tool in the hands of a foreign government? 
Mr. Monroe, the favourite plenipotentiary of Mr. Jefferson, a man 
he avers "born for the public'''^ — a saying which, like his description 
of Mr. Monroe's integrity, "turned inside out," would be found 
true; when Jay's treaty expired, signed another with the Bri- 
tish government which was equally defective on this point. And 

earnest language— "If any person on earth could, or the great power above 
would, erect the standard of infallibility in political opinions, no being that 
inhabits this terrestrial globe would resort to it with more eagerness than myself, 
so long as I remain a servant of the public. But as I have hitherto found no 
better guide than upright intentions and close investigation, I shall adhere to 
them while I keep the watch, leaving it to those who will come after me, to 
explore new ways, if they like or think them better." — Marshall, Vol. V. p. 635. 

* See Seybert's Statistics, for the years comprised within the operation of 
Jay's Treaty. 

[Besides which, it caused to be "paid into the pockets of American mer- 
chants, — who, but for the treaty, would have found in a war with England the 
completion of their ruin," — ten millions three hundred and forty five thousand 
dollars — a large sum in those days, and of great importance to our commerce 
and finances, ruined as they had been by the revolutionary war, and impeded 
in their recovery from its disasters by the iniquities of the belligerents of 
Europe. See Life of John Jay by his son, Vol. I. p. 378.] 



66 

Mr. Madison, after a fortunate and successful war, ratified a third 
treaty with the same government, which was likewise destitute of 
this indispensable stipulation. 

The only security we have against impressment, we owe neither 
to Jeffersonian presidents nor ministers, but to the prowess and 
patriotism of a parcel of "impudent federal bull-dogs" — to Hull, 
Perry, M'Donough, Bainbridge, Stewart, Biddle, and their rivals 
in glory, who with the remnant of the federal navy, convinced the 
British nation and the maritime world, that it would be as safe to 
search the boiling crater of Vesuvius, surmounted by its column of 
smoke and flame, as an unarmed vessel, bearing the Star-spangled 
banner. 

In the left-handed justice and interested obloquy of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, Washington and Jay were guilty of sacrificing "the rights, the 
interest, and the honour, of their own country" by failing to pro- 
vide against the outrage of impressment, in the early infancy of our 
national existence; while Mr. Madison for neglecting to secure it 
in a more vigorous period of our growth, fortified as he was by our 
naval triumphs, our success at Plattsburg, our brilliant battles on 
the Niagara, and more than all, by Jackson's splendid defence of 
New Orleans, is entitled to the praise (Vol. IV. p. 260) of having 
"spared to the pride of England her formal acknowledgment of the 
atrocity of impressment in an article of the treaty." Whoever ap- 
proves this allotment of merit, will be able to conceive, that in 
wisdom and patriotism, Madison and Monroe, were greatly supe- 
rior to Jay and Washington.* 

[* The paroxysm of folly and injustice into which our country was thrown 
at the epoch of Jay's treaty, presents, in our history, a spectacle as instructive 
as mortifying. It ought to be made familiar to the American people, as a per- 
petual warning against the fearful delusions of party spirit, and the pernicious 
efficacy of the arts of demagogues. That the treaty was all the country desired, 
or those who made it were anxious to obtain, no one pretended. But it was 
made by Mr. Jay and sanctioned by Washington and vindicated by Hamilton 
as the best that could be obtained, and better than its alternative, a war with 
England. The first point, viz: that it was the best which could be obtained, 
time has incontestably established. Mr. Jefferson tried in vain to make a bet- 
ter, and the brilliant victories on land and ocean of Mr. Madison's war were as 
inefficient as the diplomatic skill of his predecessor to produce that result. 
That a war with England was the alternative between which and the treaty 
we had to choose was admitted on all hands, and is proved by what followed 
after the treaty expired. Therefore the only point which in the justification of 
the treaty about which a doubt can be raised is, whether it was better for the 
country than the war which it prevented"? That it was better for all the great 
interests of property, no one can doubt; and it is equally certain that if it compro- 
mised any points of honour, they still remain unredressed; and consequently no 
one can approve the peace we now enjoy who reprobates Jay's treaty. For surely 
at the time it was made we were much less prepared to imdertake to correct by 
force of arms the code of international law, or to vindicate nice claims of 
national honour, than at present. But be this as it may, there is no one in his 
senses who will not now admit, that good and wise men might have honestly 
thought that the policy then pursued by the administration was compatible with 
our honour and conducive to our interest. "Yet the treaty," says Mr. Sparks 



67 

There were two other branches of Gen. Washington's policy, 
which, within the interval included between Mr. Jefferson's retire- 
in his Life of Washington (page 504) was dissected, criticised and condemned, 
in a tone of passionate and violent declamation, which could scarcely have been 
exceeded, if the instrument had reduced the United States to their former colo- 
nial dependence on England." Mr. Tucker (VoL I. p. 499) describes the entire 
democratic party from one end of the Union to the other "in a blaze of indig- 
nation upon the subject," and admits that Washington himself "escaped an 
imputation on his integrity only to endure the charge of weakness of under- 
standing, and of being the dupe of the British faction around him." Yet even 
this gives but a faint idea of the wicked frenzy of the time. "Is it advantage- 
ous to a republic to have a connexion with a monarchl" asked the democratic 
press; "Treaties lead to war and war is the bane of republics. Commercial 
treaties are an artificial means to obtain a natural end — they are the swathing 
bands of commerce that impede the free operations of nature." Such is a sam- 
ple of the stuff which was addressed to the country to prepare it to reprobate 
any treaty whatever which might be concluded with England. But after it 
had been sent to the Senate for ratification and its contents divulged by one of 
the members, against the rules of that body, the grand explosion of all the com- 
bustibles which had been collected by its adversaries, took place. In Philadel- 
phia the 4th of July was desecrated to the orgies of a mob, who "paraded 
the streets with an effigy of Mr. Jay, bearing a pair of scales, one labelled 
'American Liberty and Independence,' and the other, which was in extreme 
depression, 'British Gold;' while from the mouth of the figure proceeded the 
words, 'Come up to ray price and I will sell you my country.' The effigy was 
afterwards publicly committed to the flames." Public meetings to denounce 
the treaty were got up throughout the country. At one of these, held at New- 
York, the great Hamilton was answered with stones, when he attempted to 
addre.ss the multitude, who, after adopting their opprobrious resolutions, paraded 
opposite Mr. Jay's residence, to present him and his family with the spectacle 
of their impotent rage, in burning the treaty which he had made for their good. 

As to the fury of the democratic societies, it may be judged of by a resolution 
of one in South Carolina, pledging its members to "promote every constitu- 
tional mode to bring John Jay to trial and to justice," and winding up its wick- 
edness by asserting that "if he acted of and from himself, we shall lament the 
want of a Guillotine !" 

But if these senseless clamours were in themselves detestable, the object for 
which they were got up was even more preposterously execrable. They aimed 
at nothing less impossible than to intimidate Washington! How he met this 
'^civiu'/n ardor prava jubentium" is well known, and universally regarded as 
completing his title to the praise of the "Juslum ct tenaccm propositi viru7n" — 
the noblest object in all ages and countries of the highest eulogies of poetry or 
prose. He told the town of Boston, the old liberty cradle, which he himself 
had delivered from the pollution of hostile armies, but which, in the violence 
of the French epidemic had received a taint — that the constitution was the 
guide he would never abandon. "It has assigned to the President the power of 
making treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate," and "that they 
ought not to substitute for their own conviction the opinion of others, or to seek 
truth through any channel but that of a temperate and well informed investi- 
gation.'' — "While I feel the most lively gratitude for the many instances of 
approbation from my country, lean no otherwise deserve it than by obeying the 
dictates of my conscience." 

The worth, the wealth and the mass of the nation, were awakened to a sense 
of right and propriety and self respect, at the first sound of 

"That voice, their liveliest pledge 
Of hope in fears and dangers, heard so oft 
In worst extremes, and on the perilous edge 
Of battle when it raged, in all assaults 
Their surest signal." 



68 

ment from the cabinet and the date of the letter abusing Gen. Lee, 
and even previous to that interval, were subjects of his censure and 



But the knots of Jacobins, coiled up together about the land, turned all their 
impotent hisses from the ministers of the President to the President himself. 
I refrain from repeating the gibberish of their forked and envenomed tongues. 
They but serve to add to the bestial similitudes which are unfortunately fur- 
nished by the conduct of mankind; and the reader of their brief history will 
be reminded of those globes of serpents, mentioned by Humboldt in the Ameri- 
can tropics, which, in dread of the sublime bird of the region, roll up together 
their obscene folds, and present, as he soars calmly above them, nothing but 
a hideous surface of slivered mouths and hissing tongues. 

"Sibila lambebant Unguis vibrantibus ora." 

But it may not be impertinent, nor telling a tale too well known, to relieve 
this sketch of national delirium, by referring for a moment to the conduct of 
one, whose memory will ever be a national ornament, as his existence was a 
national blessing. The lesson afforded will thus be more complete, and shew 
the attractiveness of virtue, as well as therepulsivenessof vice. How was Mr. 
Jay, the chief object of all this obloquy, affected by the injustice of his country- 
menl His situation as governor of New York, to which he had been elected 
while yet abroad, threw him amidst the bustle of politics and society. Yet not 
an act of his administration, not a word of his mouth, not a trace of his pen bore 
a taint or a tinge of resentment. Pitying his deluded countrymen, and but 
mildly rebuking their deluders, forgiving his enemies himself, and soothing 
the indignation they aroused in his friends, he trod with his wonted calm and 
determined step the high and the humble, but both alike sacred, paths of duty. 
To a letter from Gen. Lee he replies: "The treaty is as it is; and the time will 
certainly come when it will very universally receive exactly that degree of 
commendation or censure which, to candid and enlightened minds, it shall 
appear to deserve. In the mean time I must do as many others have done 
before me — that is, regretting the depravity of some, and the ignorance of a 
much greater number, bear with composure and fortitude the effects of each. 
It is as vain to lament that our country is not entirely free from these evils, as 
it would be to lament that our fields produce weeds as well as corn. My good 
friend, we must take men and things as they are, and enjoy all the good we 
meet with. I enjoy the good will to which I am indebted for your letter; and 
I enjoy the occasion it affords me of assuring you of the esteem" &c. To Col. 
Pickering he writes — "Ancient as well as very modern history teaches us les- 
sons very applicable to the present times; and points out the necessity of tem- 
per, activity and decision. I think the President, with the blessing "of Provi- 
dence, will be able to carry his country safe through the storm, and to see it 
anchored in peace and safety: if so, his life and character will have no paral- 
lel." "God governs the world, and we have only to do our duty wisely and leave 
the issue to him." To Edmund Randolph he' says — "The history of Greece 
and other less ancient governments is not unknown to either of us; nor are we 
ignorant of what patriots have suffered from domestic factions and foreign 
intrigues, in almost every age. 

"It is pleasing, however, to reflect that our country possesses a greater por- 
tion of information and morals than almost any other people; and that although 
they may for a time be misled and deceived, yet there is reason to expect that 
truth and juctice cannot be long hid from their eyes." And to Mr. Duane he 
replies — "It is pleasing to see friendship, like an evergreen, bid defiance to the 
vicissitudes of the seasons;" and after enumerating the causes of the violence 
which prevailed, and saying that except as to the degree of its malignity it was 
not unexpected, he continues — "On the other hand, the highest confidence was 
reposed in the wisdom and firmness of the government, and in the virtue and 
good sense of the great mass of our people, who (especially in the eastern and 



69 

misrepresentation; for with him, ethics were so subservient to poli- 
tics, that in regard to men and measures, these two operations were 
uniformly concurrent. The measures alluded to were, 1st, the 
system of finance suggested by Hamilton, for the payment of the 
national debt, and establishment of public credit; and 2nd, the 
establishment of a national bank. The history of these measures, 
of the enlightened and patriotic views from which they proceeded, 
the able support and strenuous opposition of which they were the 
objects, you may find in the faithful narration of Marshall.* 

One of the causes, which, by demonstrating its necessity, pro- 
duced our present federal government, was the fact that the old 
confederation possessed no faculty of providing for the payment of 
the public debt. The old congress in which were combined inef- 
ficiently, legislative and executive powers, could only recommend 
to the states measures of supply. It had no authority either to 
prescribe or enforce those measures. The consequence of this want 
of punctuality and defect of capacity, was, that the vouchers of our 
foreign debt had greatly depreciated, and that those of our domes- 
tic debt had fallen almost to nothing. The disgrace and injustice 
involved in this state of things, made so deep an impression on the 



middle states) possess a degree of information and steadiness not to be found in 
other countries." Then turning from politics he again indulges the feelings 
of friendship and concludes with wishing that his correspondent's family might 
remain "■like a tree planted by the ivater-side, whose leaf shall not withe?-." 

1 have selected these excerpts to show how this good and great man met the 
storm which was raging around him, and of whose most malignant fury he was 
the object. Above the insults of mobs and the denunciations of demagogues, his 
' voice was heard, uttering an eulogy over the good sense and good feeling which 
would soon lead the former to repentance, and a sigh over the depravity which 
urged the latter into wrong. Calm amid all the confusion, he looked back 
with elevating reflections to the noble examples of history, — forward, with 
strong reliance on the great Chief and the good people of his country, — and 
upward with perfect confidence in the ultimate dispensations of the Almighty 
Ruler of the universe. Thus balanced and buoyed, he met with unruffled 
bosom every wave of the tumult, and shamed its clamours with the breathings 
of friendship, patriotism and piety. Thus have I seen a swan meeting a thou- 
sand billovv^s with a breast of down, and breathing above their hissing and howl- 
ing hubbub those soft, sonorous and silvery notes which rise in rapture till they 
sound no more. And thus to the end did this great and good man persevere — 
his long, active, useful and eventful life, in public so spot]e.ss, in private so 
pure; his passions so subdued, his piety so exalted, — and by this long career of 
ethereal virtue, his immortality at length so conspicuous through the mortal, 
that it did not shock the religious sense of the community where he lived to 
hear, nor impugn the taste of his eulogist to pronounce, that "a halo of vene- 
ration seemed to encircle him as one belonging to another world, though linger- 
ing among us. When the tidings of his death came to us, they were received 
through the nation, not with sorrow or mourning, but with solemn awe, like 
that with which we read the mysterious passage of Ancient Scripture, 'And 
Enoch walked vnth God, and he was not, for God took him.' " 

For the facts and excerpts in this note, see Jay's Life, Vol. I. p. 3bl et seq. 
The concluding extract is from an address by G. C. Verplanek, Esq., written 
soon after Mr. Jay's death.] 

* Vol. V. Ch. 4. 
9 



70 

nation, that the first congress under the new constitution, deemed 
it their duty to require, by a resolution of the 21st September, 
1789, the Secretary of the Treasury to report a plan for the re- 
demption of the public debt, foreign and domestic; an instruction 
which, on the ninth of the succeeding January, he complied with. 

This celebrated report pointed out sources of adequate revenue 
to be pledged by congress for the annual payment of the interest, 
and the regular redemption of the principal, of the whole debt 
which had been contracted by the nation in their struggle for inde- 
pendence, whether by the continental congress or by the several 
states. When it came to be considered by the legislature, it 
encountered various objections, honestly, no doubt, as they were 
certainly eloquently, urged. Some members objected to funding 
systems generally, and to withdrawing by a permanent appropria- 
tion, from the management of congress any of the legitimate objects 
of taxation. Others proposed that with respect to the domestic 
creditor he should only be paid the market price of the government 
paper — that is about twelve dollars in every hundred. Mr. Madi- 
son contended that a discrimination should be made between the 
original and the actual holder of the paper, paying to the latter the 
highest price it had borne in the course of its transfer, and to the 
former the difference between that and its nominal value — or the 
complement of this value — and of consequence, where the original 
was the actual holder, the full amount it represented. But the 
strongest opposition was directed against that section of the report, 
which included in the assumption the debts created by the states. 

The objection to the plan of the Secretary, on the score of its 
introducing a funding system, found little support, and was quietly 
disposed of. The proposition to reduce the amount of debt, by 
availing the nation of the self-created depreciation of its own paper, 
was defeated by arguments drawn from its injustice, and from the 
bad effect it would have on the system of public credit, which it 
was the object of the resolution of congress and the report of the 
Secretary, to establish. Mr. Madison's motion to discriminate be- 
tween the actual and original holders, from the eloquence and inge- 
nuity with which he supported it, and from the specious idea it 
included of a remedial intervention against extortion, excited an 
animated and protracted discussion. But the fallacious equity on 
which it was founded, attended as it was by the despotic heresy of 
meddling with private contracts, and by the certainty that it would 
neither advance the credit nor reduce the debt of the nation, were 
ably exposed, and the proposition was lost by a large majority. 

Arguments in opposition to the assumption of the state debts 
were derived from the great augmentation it would cause to that, 
which might be considered proper to the United States — an incon- 
venience which though momentous in itself, would have the more 
formidable consequence of creating such a host of dependents on 
the general government, and of setting in motion the power of taxa- 



71 

tion on so large a scale as to endanger the independence of the 
states. It was alleged that the constitution did not authorize this 
exercise of fiscal power, and that no occasion existed for it, inas- 
much as the several states were competent to the discharge of their 
own engagements. The difficulty of distinguishing between the 
liabilities thej had incurred for their own local defence, and those 
which had arisen from their exertions in the common cause, was 
relied on, as was the injustice of confounding in a common opera- 
tion engagements dissimilar in character and unequal in magnitude. 
This indefinite increase of the debt, (for the amount of the state 
debts was not jet ascertained,) it was urged would have a bad eifect 
on the public credit, by creating an apprehension that the national 
resources would not be adequate to its punctual liquidation — a cir- 
cumstance which could not fail to depreciate the paper representing 
it, nor to perpetuate that greatest of national evils, a public debt. 

In support of the assumption it was replied that the whole debt, 
both that contracted by the continental congress, and that for which 
the several states were answerable, had been incurred in a cause 
common to the Union — that in no case had the ordinary expenses, 
or civil list, of the states, exceeded their ordinary revenues^ and 
that their debts consequently represented the amount of service 
they had severally contributed to the general defence — that in these 
operations the states were virtually the agents of the general go- 
vernment, which, upon principles of obvious justice, was liable to 
the state creditors — that the assumption was not, as it had been 
described, the prodigal creation of a new debt, but the honest ac- 
knowledgment of an old one — that if it could not be denied that 
congress had the right to create a debt in the prosecution of a second 
war, it could not w^ell be disputed that they were authorized to 
discharge the debt contracted in the first; that the question was 
one not of quantity, but of principle; and consequently was not 
affected by the circumstance of the state debts having not yet been 
accurately computed. 

A multitude of tax-masters would,it was said, lead to waste in the 
collection, as a variety of paymasters would, to waste in the distri- 
bution of funds out of which these debts were to be satisfied, and 
which in either mode must be drawn ultimately from the people. 
Inequality would exist and unfairness be suspected both in their 
collection and disbursement; circumstances which while they would 
not alleviate the general pressure on the people, would leave many 
of the public creditors dissatisfied. It was said to be absurd to 
impute to the supporters of this measure, a desire to perpetuate the 
public debt, as the proposition was not to contract a debt, but to 
pay one, and that moreover as the express object of the assumption 
was to discharge the debt, it was inconsistent with common sense 
to attach to it the opposite purpose of perpetuating it. It was urged 
that the apprehension of its giving undue influence to the general 
government was at variance with the objection that it would give 



TZ 

perpetuity to the debt — for this influence must be the result of 
credit, which could not exist unless the debt was regularly liqui- 
dated. And it was contended that the assumption, while it would 
quiet a large body of citizens, would put an end to that speculation 
which was so anxiously deprecated. 

These were the principal arguments advanced in the debate, as 
it was reported in the journals of the day and is condensed in the 
History of Marshall^ and they are here recapitulated in order that 
you may judge whether on the part of the supporters of the assump- 
tion, there appears any thing like a design to convert our republic 
into a monarchy. No such design was imputed to them in the dis- 
cussionj and the accusation seems to have been first propagated, 
as it was last repeated by Mr. Jefferson, the vilitier general of the 
friends and measures of Washington; predicting of these, the most 
pernicious consequences; and ascribing to those, the worst con- 
ceivable motives. Two features in the measure alluded to — one 
that no discrimination was made between the first and last holder 
of the public paper — the other, that the debts incurred by the 
several states, in a war undertaken by common consent and prose- 
cuted in common defence, were put on the same footing with those 
contracted by the general government — were made the occasion of 
his charge upon Hamilton especially, and the political supporters 
of Washington generally, of a design to subvert our republican 
institutions, and to establish a monarchy on their ruins. 

This calumny which he specifies (Vol. IV. p. 145, et passim.) 
as, "a longing for a King, and an English King, rather than any 
other" — he invented in 1791, when the wounds received by these 
valiant patriots in liberating us from an English King, were yet 
fresh and bleeding — and maintained until the day of his death in 
1826, with an evergreen vivacity of slander, which drew rancour 
from the frosts of age, and spread forth its poisonous branches, as 
the graves of its victims thickened around. To every age, and 
through every state, it was distributed by his correspondence. The 
credulity of the young, the prejudices of the old, and the interests 
of both, were enlisted in its circulation; and not content with 
defaming the ornaments of his country at home, he industriously 
proclaimed this calumny abroad. Lafayette and Kosciusko were 
assured that their chosen friends in the United States had been 
defeated in an attempt to undermine the liberties of their country; 
and Mazzei, an Italian adventurer, was made the instrument as 
you will see of diffusing the falsehood throughout Europe. 



73 



LETTER V. 

Of a charge so extensively circulated and so long maintained, 
as that alluded to in the close of my last letter, it is worth while 
to examine the foundation, especially as the station of its author 
and the character of its objects, both tend to give it importance; and 
as on its truth or falsehood, the moral colouring of our national his- 
tory must greatly depend. 

By reference to the Anas, at the end of his fourth volume, it 
appears that in the year 1818, Mr. Jefferson revised all the impu- 
tations he had made or collected against this illustrious body of his 
countrymen, and therein it will be found he repeats, in the most 
imposing form he could give it, this particular slander. (447, 8, 9.) 
In regard to the former branch of it, the making no discrimination 
between the first and last holders of government stock, he affirms 
that it was a stratagem devised by Hamilton to gratify speculators, 
and to attach to himself a band of mercenary supporters who were 
to be his instruments in overturning the republic. In proof of this 
affirmation he proceeds as follows — "When the trial of strength on 
these several efforts had indicated the form in which the bill would 
finally pass, this being known within doors sooner than without, 
and especially than to those who were in distant parts of the Union, 
the base scramble began. Couriers and relay horses by land, and 
swift-sailing pilot boats by sea, were flying in all directions. Active 
partners and agents were associated and employed in every state, 
town and country neighbourhood, and this paper was bought up at 
five shillings, and even as low as two shillings in the pound, before 
the holder knew that congress had already provided for its redemp- 
tion at par. Immense sums were filched from the poor and igno- 
rant, and fortunes accumulated by those who had themselves been 
poor enough before. Men thus enriched by the dexterity of a leader, 
would follow of course, the chief who was leading them to fortune, 
and become the zealous instruments of all his enterprises. 

Let it be remembered that among the principal objects of recon- 
structing the form of the federal government was that of enabling 
the people of the United States to discharge the debt they had con- 
tracted in the war of Independence;* that the initiation of a plan 
for the accomplishment of this object was imposed, both by the 
nature of his office and a resolution of Congress, on the Secretary 
of the Treasury; and does it seem consistent with common justice, 

* See Gen. Washington's letter to the governors of the several States. 
{Marshall, Vol. V.p.48.) 



74 

to impute to corrupt motives, to motives that would have made a 
Catiline or an Arnold blush, any speculative ill consequences that 
might be predicated of a system thus exacted, which was original in 
its theory, and complex in its effects? Can any man of sense, who, 
with the greatest possible admiration for Mr. JeS'erson, retains the 
smallest respect for justice, approve the illiberal construction he 
puts on the labours of a colleague, whose patriotism had been long 
and meritoriously displayed^ or upon the character of those able 
men, who concurred in his views, or were convinced by his argu- 
ments? Was it not natural, nay almost inevitable, that some 
errors should either be discovered or suspected, in any plan that 
could have been proposed; and was it the part of a wise or an 
honest man, to ascribe them, not to the imperfection of reason, but 
to treasonable intentions; to lay in wait, while Hamilton was task- 
ing the powers of his creative mind, in order to discharge an im- 
portant duty, that he might denounce the appearances of error, as 
evidences of guilt. 

As it is morally impossible to look upon such a proceeding with- 
out that indignation which the foulest injustice excites, so it is 
beyond the compass of human credulity to believe that a man of 
Mr. Jefferson's understanding, really entertained the suspicions 
he expressed on this subject. Besides their incongruity with the 
characters of the men on whom they bear, the chain of inference 
by which they are attempted to be upheld, is too lax and absurd to 
be conscientiously relied on by any reflecting mind. The mere 
fact of rejecting the discrimination is made proof of corruption, in 
the enlightened statesman who carried that rejection. But were 
there not on the very surface of that proposition fair and forcible 
objections it? Would it not have interfered violently with private 
contracts, placed the government despotically between the buyer 
and the seller, been in the nature of an ex --post -facto law, and con- 
verted the transaction, arbitrarily, from a purchase into a loan; 
wresting from the purchaser the result of his risk, the degree of 
which was represented by the depreciation of the paper? Would 
not such a plan, independently of its repugnance to our system of 
laws, and habits of dealing; its inconvenience and almost imprac- 
ticability, have been in the teeth of a maxim of trade that was 
admitted before Mr. Jefferson's time? 

"The real value of a thing, 

Is just as much as it will bring." 

Again. — The facts by which he attempts to corroborate this 
odioas inference, if admitted, really destroy it; rendering his argu- 
ment as vicious as his calumny. If we believe him, when the sup- 
porters of Hamilton's system discovered that the bill would pass 
without the discriminating clause they despatched couriers, ex- 
presses, and swift-sailing packets, to every State, town, and county 
in the Union; devoured the roads, and vexed the seas; associated 



75 

partners and employed agents in every neighbourhood, in order to 
buy up this paper at a great discount. This operation must have 
created instantaneously, a general and pressing demand for it, and 
have raised its price to the level of that demand. In the nature 
of things, the speculation, consequently, must either have been in- 
considerable in extent, or inconsiderable in profit,* so that if it be 
possible to sympathise with his Irish outcry against those cruel 
and ingenious federalists, who discovered the mode of "filching 
immense fortunes from the poor," it will be difficult not to perceive 
the injustice of his accusation through the fallacy of his reasoning. 

Besides he and his friends in Congress had a newspaper at their 
command^ through its columns, and by private letters, they could 
have apprised the public of the progress and probable event of the 
bill. That they did not do so, places Mr. Jefferson at least in the 
dilemma, of having either perceived no ground for his imputation, 
or of being subject to the suspicion which he erects upon it. 

To reinforce this charge of a design in Hamilton to establish a 
monarchy upon the ruins of the Constitution, and of a corrupt in- 
strumentality in it, on the part of the other leading friends of Gen. 
Washington, he adduces with equal confidence, the assumption of 
the State debts. It being unnecessary to discuss an obvious ab- 
surdity, I beg to remind you that I confine my remarks to the 
object of proving the impossibility of Mr. Jefferson's believing his 
own accusations. In this case, he knew that it had been demon- 
strated, and was at all times and places demonstrable, that the 
debts of the States had been contracted for national purposes^ that 
the greater the debt of any particular State, the greater had been 
its exertion, and exposure in the common cause; and that the 
principles of agency, applied in favour of the States. This reason- 
ing was not only conclusive to his judgment, but the equity of it 
was Vamiliar to his memory, as appears from the following letter, 
of the 15th December, 1780; which, when governor of Virginia, 
he wrote to Gen. Washington, (Vol. I. pp. 198, 199.) 

"From intelligence received, we have reason to expect that a 
confederacy of British and Indians, to the amount of two thousand 
men, is formed, for the purpose of spreading destruction and dis- 
may through the whole extent of our frontier, in the ensuing- 
spring. Should this take place, we shall certainly lose in the south 
all the aids of militia from beyond the Blue Ridge, besides the in- 
habitants who must fall a sacrifice in the course of the savage 
irruptions. .There seems to be but one method of preventing this, 
which is, to give the western enemy employment in their own 
country. The regular force Col. Clarke already has, with a pro- 
per draft from the militia beyond the Alleghany, and that of three 
or four of our most northern counties, will be adequate to the 
reduction of Fort Detroit, in the opinion of Col. Clarke; and he 
assigns the most probable reasons for that opinion. We have, 
therefore, determined to undertake it, and commit it to his direc- 



76 

tion. Whether the expense of the enterprise shall be defrayed by 
the Continent or State, we will leave to be decided hereafter, by 
Congress, in whose justice we can confide, as to the determina- 
tion.^^ This extract covers every point in the assumption; sliows 
the general advantage resulting from the enterprises of individual 
States; and the recognised equity of charging their pecuniary 
expense to the Union. As Hamilton's report was necessarily sub- 
mitted to the President, and referred to the Cabinet, before it was 
transmitted to Congress, there is abundant reason to believe, that 
this very claim of Virginia furnished one of the motives which 
determined the mind of the Executive, both in the formation and 
sanction of this financial measure; and that Mr. Jefterson here 
censures as corrupt and treasonable, a proceeding, which he had 
proposed as governor of Virginia, and approved as Secretary of 
State. 

It is useless to pursue any farther his absurdities and injustice 
in regard to this fair and beneficial measure, by referring to the 
assumption of the State debts, growing out of the late war, or to 
his zeal in favour of securing that of Virginia, (Vol. IV. p. 411.) 
But it is wonderful to think what a superstructure of popularity- 
giving slander he reared on them. Like the Arabian impostor, he 
seems to have determined to storm the understanding of his fol- 
lowers by the boldness of his leading fictions; so that when once 
the gates of doubt were forced open, entrance for all future falla- 
cies was secure. Their zeal was completely enlisted as soon as 
they were brought to believe that his opponents were necessarily 
enemies of freedom. And this infatuation, which opened a spacious 
avenue for countless and cruel suspicions — 

"That with extended wings, a bannered host, 
Under spread ensigns marching, might pass through, 
With horse and chariots ranked in loose array," 

was strengthened by the consideration, that in consequence of 
dividing the country into two castes, the worthy, and the unworthy 
of office, the fund of emolument and place, with which to reward 
his proselytes would be augmented. It followed, as a matter of 
course, that the fame and popularity of Washington were over- 
shadowed by that of Jefferson; that Hamilton, Jay, Marshall, and 
Knox, gave place in public estimation, to Madison, Monroe, Gal- 
latin and Dearborne; that men of all classes, especially the revo- 
lutionary officers, who retained or expressed veneration for the 
father of their country, were denounced as traitors, stigmatised as 
Englishmen, and declared unfit for any public trust; and that the 
eastern States, Massachusetts particularly, "the cradle of the revo- 
lution," were pronounced to be British Provinces.* 

* Speaking of the Federalists of Massachusetts, Mr. Jefferson wrote to Gen. 
Dearborne, in August, 1811, (Vol. IV. p. 166,) as follows: "Tell my old 
friend, governor Gerry, that I give him glory for the rasping, with which he 



77 

At length when Mr. JeiFerson's peculiar calumnies were likely 
to lose force by repetition, a market for new ones was opened. 
This, getting wind, it was soon scented by the office-and-salary- 
loving John Quincy Adams. He immediately prepared a bundle 
of treasons and carried them under his cloak to the President, to 
catch whose eye he labelled one in large letters Hamilton. The 
President (Jefterson) says (Vol. IV. p. 419,) he received them with 
"awe," and the informer no doubt presented them with solemnity. 
The substance of the transaction that ensued was that "for and in 
consideration" of Mr. Adams' asserting that the leading men of 
his own State, with whom he and his father had long been asso- 
ciated in habits of personal and political friendship, were engaged, 
originally under the auspices of Alexander Hamilton, in forming a 
treasonable connexion with England, he was declared upon suffi- 
cient authority to be to all intents and purposes, a Jeffersonian 
Republican, to be worthy of the President's confidence, and of 
public office — was made first, the leader of the administration 
party in the Senate, next Minister to Russia, and in due time to 
London. 

His speculation turning out so well, Henry, an Irish adventurer, 
in connexion with a French impostor who styled himself Ze Comte 
de Crillon, repaired to Washington about the beginning of the last 
war, and informed the President (Madison) that the same federal- 
ists of Massachusetts had not quite completed their traitorous 
alliance with England, but were at that moment engaged in nego- 
tiating through him with the Canadian and British governments. 
Notwithstanding that Henry's disclosure bore a mercenary brand 
on its front, and that the French minister refused to receive the 
soi-disant Count, our President received and entertained the Count 

rubbed down his herd of traitors. Let them have justice, and protection 
against personal violence, but no favour. Powers and pre-eminences con- 
ferred on them, are daggers put into the hands of assassins, to be plunged into 
our own bosoms, the moment the thrust can go home to the heart. Modera- 
tion can never reclaim them. They deem it timidity, and despise without 
fearing the tameness from which it flows. Backed by England, they never 
lose the hope that their day is to come, when the terrorism of their earlier 
power is to be merged in the more gratifying system of deportation and the 
guillotine. Being now ^hors de coinbaV myself, I resign these cares to others." 

The ferocity of these sentiments is equalled only by the vulgarity of the 
language, and the tyrannical temper which they disclose. To the freemen of 
a sister State, whose rights were ascertained and consecrated by laws of their 
own making, and who contributed both to the emolument and the dignity of 
the high office, which for eight years he had tilled, he advises governor Gerry, 
and Gen. Dearborne, Ko grant justice, and protection against personal violence. 
That is, do not mob or murder them; do not take away violently tJteir property or 
their lives, as our friends in Baltimore have been doing, and countenancing 
lately. 

It is no easy matter to determine whether it was more disgraceful to have 
perpetrated the writing, or accepted the intimacy, or provoked the praise of 
this letter; which separated from the names attached to it, might be mistaken 
for the brutal and frantic ribaldry of one West India slave driver to another. 
10 



78 

at least; and Henry modestly preferring cash to office, was paid 
out of funds belonging to the people of the United States, fifty 
thousand dollars, for a slander on a part of them, which slander 
Mr, John Q. Adams had sold before. 

Incidental to Hamilton's system of finance, was, as has been 
mentioned, a proposition to establish a National Bank which was 
opposed by Mr. Madison as unconstitutional;* and reprobated by 
Mr. Jefferson as a part of Hamilton's monarchical scheme. I notice 
this merely to refer to the well known fact that after Mr. Madi- 
son became President he approved a law for the establishment of 
a National Bank on similar principles, and with a capital of thirty 
instead often millions of dollars. With equal inconsistency Mr. 
Jefferson who denied, throughout, the constitutional power of the 
General Government to construct a road or canal through either 
or any of the States, sanctioned as President, a law for the con- 
struction of the Cumberland road, which runs through the territory 
of three States. 

In relation to fiscal measures, and the funding system particu- 
larly, his opinions were equally contradictory, proceeding always 
from the veering suggestions of interest, and never from the steady 
influence of principle. In 1798, when he was endeavouring to 
supplant President Adams, by whose administration upon the ap- 
prehension of a war with France, a small loan was contracted, he 
wrote to Col. Taylor, (Vol. III. p. 404.) "I wish it were possible 
to obtain a single amendment to the Constitution. I would be 
willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the adminis- 
tration of our government to the general principles of the Constitu- 
tion. 1 mean an additional article taking from the federal govern- 
ment the power of borrowing." In 1815 he writes to Mr. Monroe, 
"We seem equally incorrigible in our financial course. Although 
a century of British experience has proved to what a wonderful 
extent the funding, or specific redeeming, taxes enables a govern- 
ment to anticipate in war the resources of peace, and although the 
other nations of Europe have tried and trodden every path of force 
or folly in fruitless quest of the same object, yet we still expect 
to find" in juggling tricks and banking dreams, that money can be 
made out of nothing, and in sufficient quantity to meet the expenses 
of a war by sea and land. It is said indeed that money cannot be 
borrowed from our merchants as from those of England. But it 
can be borrowed from our people. They will give you all the 
necessaries of war they produce, if instead of the bankrupt trash 
they now are obliged to receive for want of any other, you will 
give them a paper promise, founded on a specific pledge, and of a 
sixe fitted for circulation."t Now I am far from denying the pro- 

* Marshall, Vol. V. p. 294. 

t The bankrupt trash, means the paper of the State and private banks — the 
old United States Bank of Hamilton having then wound up its operations in 
conformity with the limitation of its charter, and the new one of Madison, not 
having been as yet incorporated. 



79 

prietj of any man's changing his opinions whenever experience or 
reflection shall convince him of their error, whether it be in the 
art of healing or destroying, or governing men, whether the man 
be a physician, a general, or a statesman. But assuredly, if in this 
process he adopts an opinion, which, when advanced by others he 
had declared to be fraught with public injury and demonstrative of 
atrocious designs, he ought either to retract the imputation, or to 
confess the justice of its application to himself. Neither of these 
manly steps was taken by the statesmen in question^ one preserv- 
ing silence, the other persisting in abuse. 

There are other of Mr. Jetterson's letters recognising the right 
and prudence of the funding system, in regard to the financial 
emergencies of our federal government, as for example (Vol. II. 
p. 383,) to Mr. Madison. But the most characteristic of the fiscal 
rhapsodies, with which his volumes abound, is in a letter to the 
same fraternal politician and correspondent, (Vol. III. p. 27,) 
proving as its author afiirms, that one generation of men, has no 
right to contract debts which another must pay — and consequently 
that the validity of an obligation of that sort is to be ascertained 
not by its terms or the general principles of justice, but by refer- 
ence to bills of mortality, in order to see if a majority of the con- 
tracting generation has died off'; and the obligation to pay, has been 
extinguished with it. Upon this luminous and substantial princi- 
ple, the longer a government defers the payment of its debts, the 
less the obligation to satisfy their creditors becomes, and of course 
as the generous La Fayette had been left unrequited for his pecu- 
niary sacrifices in support of our independence for a term longer 
than the average existence of the majority of a generation after it 
has reached the age of discretion — that is, has attained the legal 
capacity to borrow — our government transgressed both right and 
justice in acknowledging his unasserted claim, and making provi- 
sion for it. This singular theory is so exuberantly fallacious, so 
arborescently absurd, that it well deserves a closer examination 
than I can afford to bestow on it.* 

With regard to the monstrous inconsistencies of these States - 

[* The heresy here condemned was more than a "fiscal rhapsody." Mr. 
Jefferson maintains further, that "every law and even constitution, naturally 
expires at the end of this term," (19 years,) as the reader will find in Mr. 
Tucker's Life, Vol. I. p. 291, and be surprised, too, to find that the biographer 
discovers the origin of this opinion in his hero's "ever active spirit of benevo- 
lence." Nor is it carelessly broached, bin earnestly recommended to Mr. 
Madison's attention, who in a long and laborious reply cautiously resists it, 
"as not in all respects comipa.tih\e with the course of human afiairs." 

But a more instructive reference of the reader will be to. a paragraph in 
Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution, (p. Ill,) where he will see that 
in the opinion of that great man, "By this unprincipled facility of changing 
the state as often, and as much, and in as many ways as there are floating 
fancies or fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth 
would be broken. No one generation could link with the other. Men would 
become little better than the flies of a summer."] 



80 

men, it may be observed that as their plan when out of power, was 
to decry every measure of the party in power, not with a view of 
putting them right, but of putting them out, it occurred naturally 
that they were often, after they succeeded, obliged to adopt the very 
proceedings they had denounced. This dilemma is illustrated, 
while it explains it, by the apparent inconsistency of that non- 
descript debater John Randolph, in vilifying both parties. The 
measures which he had concurred with Messrs. Jefferson and 
Madison in reprobating in the federal administration, he diff'ered 
from them by denouncing when sanctioned by their own; and his 
error was either that he did not examine, or was incapable of judg- 
ing whether in the first case, the measure was right or wrong. Fal- 
lacies which he was betrayed into by passion, and adhered to 
through obstinacy, his leaders broached from interest and aban- 
doned from calculation, and while conscious of the substantial sin 
of injustice, they drowned his eloquent invectives, in a shower of 
reproaches for the equivocal fault of inconsistency — for varying 
from their own inconstant standard. 



LETTER VI. 

The course of Mr. Jefferson's correspondence next leads us to 
his famous letter to Mazzei, which, in a futile attempt to explain 
it, he denominates (Vol. IV. p. 401,) "a precious theme of federal 
crimination." It bears date less than two months anterior to that 
in which he assures Gen. Washington of his total abstraction from 
party politics, and reviles Gen. Lee so bitterly for having intimat- 
ed a doubt of the sincerity of this avowal. Being connected with 
a strenuous effort in 1797, to mask one of its bearings, and with 
an abstract attempt in 1824, to parry another, it extends to two 
distinct eras, both as it regards Gen. Washington and Mr. Jeffer- 
son himself. To the former it refers both before and after his 
death, to his envied popularity, and his unsullied renown; to the 
latter, while intent upon the acquisition of power; and after that 
had been enjoyed and resigned, when covetous of fame. You will 
therefore perceive that the task of detecting its true meaning, (and 
of exposing the objects with which it was written) if not likely to 
require ability in a writer, will demand of the reader patient atten- 
tion. 

As it appears in his "Writings," this letter, so far as it relates 
to public matters, is in the following words, (Vol. III. p. 327.) 



81 

"Monticello, ^pril Mth, 1796. 

"My Dear Friend, — The aspect of our politics has wonderfully 
changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty 
and republican government which carried us triumphantly through 
the war, an Anglican, monarchical, and aristocratical party has 
sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance, 
as they have already done the forms of the British government. 
The main body of our citizens, however, remain true to their 
republican principles; the whole landed interest is republican, and 
so is a great mass of talents. Against us are the executive, the 
judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the offi- 
cers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men 
who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, 
British merchants, and Americans trading on British capitals, 
speculators, and holders in the banks and public funds, a contri- 
vance invented for purposes of corruption, and for assimilating us 
in all things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British 
model. It would give you a fever were 1 to name to you the apos- 
tates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons 
in the field, and Solomons in the council, but who have had their 
heads shorn by the harlot of England. In short, we are likely to 
preserve the liberty we have gained only by unremitting labours 
and perils. But we shall preserve it; and our mass of weight and 
wealth on the good side is so great as to leave no danger that force 
will ever be attempted against us. We have only to awake and 
snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling 
us during the first sleep which succeeded our labours." 

This letter, or rather this part of it, was translated into Italian, 
and published by Mazzei in a Gazette of Florence. In Paris, it 
was republished in the Moniteur in a French version of Mazzei's 
translation, with editorial remarks adapted to its sentiments, tend- 
ing to show the faithless spirit of our government towards France, 
the strength of the Galilean party in the United States, and the 
justice as well as the policy of the hostile measures pursued by the 
directory towards us. From the Moniteur it was transferred to 
the English papers, after undergoing a retranslation, and in this last 
dress found its way to the United States. Although it bore no 
signature it was immediately imputed to Mr. Jefterson, a circum- 
stance which occasioned his favouring Mr. Madison with the fol- 
lowing eager explanation of it, (Vol. III. p. 362.) 

"Monticello, August 3rf, 1797. 
"I SCRIBBLED you a line on the 24th ult., it missed of the post, 
and so went by a private hand. I perceive from yours by Mr. 
Bringhurst that you had not received it. In fact, it was only an 
earnest exhortation to come here with Monroe, which I still hope 
you will do. In the mean time I enclose you a letter from him. 



82 

and wish your opinion on its principal subject. The variety of 
other topics the day I was with you, kept out of sight the letter to 
Mazzei imputed to me in the papers, the general substance of 
which is mine, though the diction has been considerably altered 
and varied in the course of its translations from English into 
Italian, from Italian into French, and from French into English. 
I first met with it at Bladensburg, and for a moment conceived I 
must take the field of the public papers. I could not disavow it 
wholly, because the greatest part was mine in substance, though 
not in form. I could not avow it as it stood, because the form was 
not mine, and in one place the substance very materially falsified. 
This, then, would render explanations necessary; nay, it would 
render proofs of the whole necessary, and draw me at length into 
a publication of all (even the secret) transactions of the cabinet 
while I was of it; and embroil me personally with every member 
of the executive, with the judiciary, and with others still. I soon 
decided in my own mind to be entirely silent. I consulted with 
several friends at Philadelphia, who, every one of them, were 
clearly against my avowing or disavowing, and some of them con- 
jured me most earnestly to let nothing provoke me to it. I cor- 
rected, in conversation with them, a substantial misrepresentation 
of the copy published. The original has a sentiment like this, (for 
I have it not before me) 'they are endeavouring to submit us to the 
substance, as they already have to the forms of the British govern- 
ment,' meaning by forms the birth-days, levees, processions to 
Parliament, inauguration pomposities, &c. But the copy published 
says, 'as they have already submitted us to the form of the Bri- 
tish,' &c.; making me express hostility to the form of our govern- 
ment, that is, to the constitution itself. For this is really the 
difference of the word form, used in the singular or plural, in that 
phrase in the English language. Now it would be impossible for 
me to explain this publicly, without bringing on a personal differ- 
ence between Gen. Washington and myself, which nothing before 
the publication of this letter has ever done. It would embroil me 
too, with all those with whom his character is still popular, that is, 
with nine-tenths of the people of the United States; and what good 
would be obtained by avowing the letter with the necessary expla- 
nations.** Very little, indeed, in my opinion, to counterbalance a 
good deal of harm. From my silence in this instance, it cannot be 
inferred that I am afraid to own the general sentiments of the let- 
ter. If I am subject to either imputation, it is to that of avowing 
such sentiments too frankly both in private and public, often when 
there is no necessity for it, merely because I disdain every thing 
like duplicity. Still, however, I am open to conviction. Think 
for me on the occasion, and advise me what to do, and confer with 
Col. Monroe on the subject. Let me entreat you again to come 
with him; there are other important things to consult upon." 
The explanation here advanced is evidently designed to impose 



83 

on Mr. Madison, and therefore is naturally at variance with that 
subsequently furnished to Mr. Van Buren — the object of which was 
to delude him into the belief that Gen. Washington had never 
taken exception to the letter to Mazzei, and that assertions to that 
eftect, were the false effusions "of federal malice." 

The design upon Mr. Madison was a double one; first, to recon- 
cile him to the unmanliness of preferring an evasive silence, to an 
open avowal or fair explanation of the letter; second, to conceal 
from him, if possible, the obvious application of its censure to him- 
self. As this latter application had a tendency to wound the 
delicacy of his self-love, it is dexterously covered by the former 
part of his design, and by that stratagem is made to appear as if it 
were intended solely to answer their mutual purpose, of avoiding 
an open rupture with Gen. Washington. In furtherance of this 
scheme, Mr. Madison is assured that in consequence of mutilations 
which successive translations had produced in the text of the let- 
ter to Mazzei, Mr. Jefferson could not disavow it wholly with 
truth, nor avow it wholly without explanations; which explana- 
tions "would embroil him personally with every member of the 
executive, with the judiciary, and with others;" that consequently 
he decided very soon in his own mind to remain perfectly silent; 
and that certain nameless friends, whom he consulted in Philadel- 
phia, were clear and earnest for his persisting in this equivocal 
silence. Mentioning then, that he had corrected in conversation 
with these frank and worthy persons, a substantial error in the 
copy, he shuffles down with a sort of brazen confusion, to the point 
of the slander which was pressing against Mr. Madison's reputa- 
tion; and keeping that confederate's eyes upturned all the while 
to the indignant countenance of Gen. Washington, slips out the 
following card of deception: — "The original has a sentiment like 
this, (for I have it not before me,) 'they are endeavouring to sub- 
mit us to the substance as they already have to the forms of the 
British Government,' meaning hy fonns, the birth-days, levees, 
processions to Parliament, inauguration pomposities, &c. But the 
copy published says, 'as they have already submitted us to the 
form of the British,' &c., making me express hostility to the form 
of our Government, that is to the Constitution itself. For this is 
really the difference of the word form, in the singular or plural, in 
that phrase, in the English language." 

As Mr. Jefferson made this exposition, confessedly on the 
strength of his memory, and not from a collation of the copy with 
the original, I shall take the liberty of suggesting that he was mis- 
taken in point of fact; that the word used in the letter to Mazzei, 
was form. His hand writing was remarkably neat, plain, and cor- 
rect, as is known to his numerous correspondents, and appears by 
the fac- simile at the end of his fourth volume; and Mazzei, from 
their intimacy and correspondence, was familiar with it. The 
probability is, that in a letter which this person thought, or was 



84 

induced to consider, of sufficient importance to be published in the 
Florence Gazette, he would be careful to see that no error was 
committed in its translation or publication; and it having been 
accurately printed in Italian, a subsequent error of the kind insist- 
ed on, was almost impossible. For in the French language, as in 
the Italian, the ditttirence between the singular and the plural in 
nouns, is marked by a change in the termination of two words, that 
is the article and the noun; as for example — in Italian la forma, 
singular, is le forme plural: and in French, ia forme singular, is les 
formes plural. Whereas in English, the change is confined to one 
word, and consists solely in the absence or presence of the s final. 
Thus, if Mr. Jefterson had written ybr?ns, the care of Mazzei, 
would have ensured the appearance in the Florence Gazette, of the 
phrase le forme, which the structure of the French and Italian lan- 
guages would have forced the Moniteur to represent by les formes; 
a noun that the English translator would of necessity, have known 
to be plural, and would have so rendered. From these intrinsic 
evidences, it is highly improbable, to say the least, that if Mr. 
Jefterson wrote the word in the plural, it should have been altered 
in the series of translations into the singular. 

But considering it in another point of view, if this alteration did 
actually happen, as he affirms, "in the course of its translations 
from English into Italian, from Italian into French, and from 
French into English,"' it only proves that the person who made the 
alteration, considered it, as every body else will probably do, im- 
material, deeming the two phrases /onn of government, and forms 
of government, equivalent; and that the use of the one or the other, 
made no change whatever in the meaning. Thus a sort of dilemma 
arises at the threshhold of his explanation, and seems to shake its 
horns at this assertion of Mr. Jefterson, making it either erroneous 
or idle. If the error of version be not unlikely, the equivalent 
construction put upon the phrases by the peccant translator, be- 
comes highly probable; and if this construction is considered 
unnatural, the error of tianslation is scarcely possible. 

But can it be seriously supposed by the most ignorant, or by the 
most learned man, that Mazzei, or any one else in Europe or 
America, could understand by the phrase, /ory^is of the British 
government, the King's birth-night balls, the Queen's levees, pro- 
cessions to parliament, or ceremonies of the Coronation? Does 
Montesquieu, in his analysis, or De Lolme, in his description of 
the English Constitution, allude, even to these forms? Was the 
mind of Pope, when he wrote the oft-repeated line, 

"For forms of government let fools contest," 

inspired by levees, birth-nights, and processions? After the alleged 
transplantation of these ceremonies in America, did they become 
forms of our government, of a government which exists solely in 
our written constitution. When Mr. Jefterson, on becoming Presi- 



85 

deDt, aDDoanced to Mr. Macon the heads of the reformation be pro- 
posed tx» introduce, and commenced the list with "LeTees are done 
away;-' could the venerable senator from North Carolina, hare 
nnderstood that a certaiuybrm of our sovernment was to be abol- 
ished? Are the Washington birth-night balls, which still anni- 
Tersarily recur in the towns and villa^a of the United Slates, 
forr/u of the federal or state sovernraenta? Were the weekly 
levees of Mrs. Madison and Mrs. Monroe forroJs of political or 
petticoat government? Or was the custom adopted by Gen. Wash- 
ington of opening each session of Congress with a speech, instead 
of a message, when he was attended bv a voluntary concourse of 
his fellow-citizens, a forra of the British ^oterroJurU, "drawn 
over" the people of the United States? 

The truth is, tliat as a message is nothing; more nor less than a 
written speech, and as the Kings of England open the sessions of 
Parliament by commission, more frequently than in person, Mr- 
Jefferson's custom was of a more regal form than Gen. Washing- 
ton's, was less consistent with the frank and open carriage of a 
republican officer, less respectful to the legislative bodies, and con- 
sequently to the people and the States whom they represented. 

On the other hand, the /orm-s of the British government have 
universally been understood to mean its division into legislative, 
executive, and judiciary departments: the unity of its executive; 
the duality of its legislature, and the independence of its judiciary. 
These forms were imitated with more or less exactness, as they 
appeared conducive to the iubalance of freedom, in the constitu- 
tion of the United States, as may be seen by reference to the com- 
pact itself, and to the essays of Mr. Madison expounding it; and 
were unquestionably the subject of Mr. Jefferson's remark whether 
he used the word in the singular or the plural. 

Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to John Dickinson (Vol. III. p. 487,) 
in reference to the objects of the revolution, says — "Surely we had 
in view to obtain a theory and practice of good government; and 
how any, who seemed so ardent in this pursuit, could as shame- 
lessly have apostatised, and supposed we meant only to put our 
government into other hands, but not other forms, is indeed won- 
derful." Now here this wordybn/is is used in the plnral and in 
connexion with the word government: vet it cannot be forced by 
any construction into the meaning of "birth-days, levees or pro- 
cessions to parliament," which Mr. Jefferson assures his friend 
Mr. Madison, it always bore "in that phrase ia the English lan- 
guage." 

Thus it appears, that if we examine into tie effect of the various 
translations of this letter, we are led to believe that Mr. Jefferson 
used the word /orm in the singular, in opposition to substance in 
the previous member of the sentence; and that, if out of courtesy, 
we admit his assertion to the contrary, we discover that the altera- 
tion of the text, which he insists on, would make not the least 
11 



86 

possible difference in his meaning. The conclusion therefore is, 
even from these premises, that this eager explanation to Mr. Madi- 
son, was factitious and fraudulent, intended not so much to con- 
sult as to mislead his judgment, and to prevent his taking offence 
at finding himself classed with the members of the "Anglican, 
monarchical, and aristocratical party," which had "sprung up" in 
the United States. For the natural import of the language, whether 
the word form or forms be employed, is, that those persons who 
had drawn over us i\\Q forms of the British governvnent, that is the 
framers of our constitution, had combined into an Anglican, mo- 
narchical, and aristocratical party, and were trying to draw over 
us also its substance, that is, its corruption, its executive patron- 
age, its privileged classes, its sinecures and hereditary tenure of 
office. Now, as Mr. Madison's popularity and public reputation 
■were founded on his exertions and influence in devising the /on/is 
of our government, (not birth-night balls, levees, &c.) and in 
recommending their adoption to the people, the inference, that he 
was implicated in the slander entrusted to Mazzei, is irresistible. 
You may ask if this explanation be so shallow and preposterous, 
how Mr. Jefferson could venture to offer, or succeed in imposing 
it, on a person of Mr. Madison's scholastic and practical acquaint- 
ance with our language. The answer is that Mr. Madison had 
been accustomed to be deceived by him, and in this case would be 
willing to be imposed on. Mithridates took poison so often, that 
at last, the most deadly and active substances would produce no 
disturbance in his stomach; and it is easy to comprehend how 
reluctant Mr. Madison would be on the occasion in question to 
doubt the personal friendship or to lose the political alliance of 
Mr. Jefferson. The latter had therefore in his favour the power of 
habit and the influence of self-lovej agents offeree enough to bias 
the strongest understanding. Besides, the offensive meaning of 
the sentence, was rendered less obvious than it might have been, 
by Mr. Jefferson's declining to enclose the genuine letter, though 
he was then at Monticello, that great mint of press copies, 
where, as you may remember, one was readily coined to appease 
the apprehended resentment of Col. Burr, and where, as we 
shall presently see, another was struck twenty-seven years subse- 
quently to bewilder the credulity of Mr. Van Buren. Instead of 
sending him a faithful copy of his letter, he refers him to one from 
Mr. Monroe, and persuades him to a conference with that gentle- 
man, who as he had borne no part in the formation of the constitu- 
tion and but an immaterial one in its adoption,* (Vol. II. p. 367,) 
might be the more easily employed to decoy Mr. Madison into 
security as to himself, and into apprehension as to the effect which 
an avowal or explanation of the letter would have on Mr. Jeffer- 
son, and through him on the interests of the whole party. 

* See Robertson's Debates of the Virginia convention. 



87 

To mislead Mr. Madison still further, he avers that the sen- 
tence, by its alleged alteration, would make him "express hostility 
to the form of our government, that is to the constitution itself"— 
whereas, if Mr. Madison had seen the letter itself, he would have 
perceived that it could produce no such ettect — for certainly to say 
that the form of the Federal government resembles that of Great 
Britain — which was admitted on all hands, to be the best in exist- 
ence before ours was created, and to which it is related by such 
strong and numerous analogies, cannot be interpreted into an 
expression of hostility to the constitution of the United States, 
without going to the absurdity of imputing that sentiment to the 
fathers of our charter. This superfluous defence shows that it 
was the language he concealed from Mr. Madison, not that which 
he repeated to him, his conscience and not his communication, 
which on this occasion was his accuser. For his letter to Mazzei, 
as now published, does most certainly "express hostility to the 
Constitution itself," as well as to its framers. 

But this chicanery, contemptible as it is, is not the worst part 
of the letter to Mr. Madison. For after admitting the letter to 
Mazzei to be in substance his, Mr. Jefterson expresses his deter- 
mination, neither to avow, nor disavow, nor explain it, for fear ot 
its bringing on a personal difference between himself and Gen. 
Washington, and embroiling him with other distinguished men. He 
said to Mr. Madison as he had said to Mr. Monroe. I have writ- 
ten a letter to Mazzei, of a character to wound the feelings of Gen. 
fVashington and several other gentlemen. Contrary to my expec- 
tation, it is published in the American neivspapers, fortunately 
without my signature, but in substance as I ivrote it, though with 
the alteration of one word, which I think changes its meaning in 
one respect^ but which neither increases nor lessens the personal 
offence it is likely to give. I cannot avow it ivholly because of this 
alteration, nor disavow it altogether because of its substantial accu- 
racy, nor explain its alterations without bringing on a personal 
difference with Gen. Washington, and embroiling me with these 
other eminent persons. J am therefore decided in my own mind^ 
neither to avow, nor to disavow, nor to explain it: and by this 
silence to avoid the personal responsibility to which it would subject 
me, as well as the serious harm it would occasion to my own popu- 
larity and our mutual political plans. I am anxious to get your 
advice on the subject, and I hope, that, after consulting uuilh Mon- 
roe, you will approve, like my honest friends in Philadelphia, this 
prudent and evasive silence. 

Here, if we trust the indications of Mr. Jefferson's correspon- 
dence, are three citizens who were destined to rise in succession 
to the highest place in the popular affection and political power ot 
a great republic — in a government, the essential principle of which 
is virtue,* consulting together on a point of conduct upon which 

* Montesquieu. Esprit des Lois, liv. 3. chap. 3. 



88 

no man of honesty can possibly doubt, and, as far as appears, 
finally adopting a proceeding which no man of honour can approve. 
Is it possible to believe that Gen. Washington ever could have 
shrunk into such ignominious evasion.** Or can the utmost 
stretch of the imagination conceive him consulting urgently and 
secretly with Gen. Hamilton and Gen. Lee, upon a step, of which 
the vast departure from manliness and honour, no language can 
describe? If there exist a being who can suppose so great an im- 
probability, let him refer to the undisputed fact that arose out of 
the resignation of Edmund Randolph as Secretary of State. That 
gentleman — "for the purpose* as he alleged of vindicating his con- 
duct, demanded the sight of a confidential letter which had been 
addressed to him by the President, and which was left in the office. 
His avowed design was to give this as well as some others of the 
same description to the public in order to support the allegation, 
that in consequence of his attachment to France and to liberty, he 
had fallen a victim to the intrigues of a British and aristocratic 
party." To this demand Washington replied — "I have directed 
that you have the inspection of my letter of the 22nd of July, 
agreeably to your request, and you are at full liberty to publish, 
without reserve, any and every private and confidential letter I ever 
wrote you. Nay more, every word I ever uttered to or in your 
presence from whence you can derive any advantage in your vindi- 
cation, "t 

No contrast can be stronger than the difference between these 
proceedings — that of Washington displaying a consciousness of 
rectitude, a sense of magnanimity, and an ardent love of truth. 
To the admirers of Mr. Jetferson I leave the glorious task of por- 
traying the virtues which on the occasion he exhibited. Let them 
reconcile his silence with the sentiments of his letter abusing Gen. 
Lee, his evasion with honour, his secrecy with truth, either with 
the spirit of an independent man, or the duty of a good citizen. 
Let them account for his conduct on any other hypothesis than 
that involving a consciousness of the injustice of his own asper- 
sions; a fear of the exposure their avowal would "draw over" him 
personally and politically, in substance as well as mform; and an 
apprehension that besides this formidable array of enemies, it 
would be attended by the rupture of his alliance with Mr. Madi- 
son, and the consequent loss of this valuable auxiliary. For from 
the incompatibility between the tenor of his professions to Gen. 
Washington, and his communications to Mr. Madison, it was 
morally impossible that an explanation which would disarm Gen. 
Washington, should not offend Mr. Madison. While to a private 
one, therefore, he was averse, a public one he actually dreaded. 

There is one sentence which brings us to the zero of pusil- 
lanimity — to a point of prevarication, at which Mr. Jefferson's moral 

* Marshall, Vol. V. p. 31, Notes. t Marshall, ibid. 



89 

sense seems to have undergone congelation, and to have been 
attended by an instinctive assurance that a similar catastrophe had 
befallen his friends — a degree in the descending scale of dishonour 
at which shame and fear are actually transmuted into vanity and 
impudence. After this elaborate equivocation and dissembling, 
he exclaims — "From my silence in this instance, it cannot be in- 
ferred that I am afraid to own the general sentiments of the letter. 
If I am subject to either imputation, it is to that of avowing such 
sentiments too frankly both in private and public, often when there 
is no necessity for it, merely because I disdain every thing like 
duplicity."!! And to be convinced that his love of truth was as 
sincere as his "disdain of every thing like duplicity," you have 
only to remember that he assured Gen. Washington in his letter 
abusing Gen. Lee — which was written in the interval between the 
date of the letter to Mazzei and of this to Mr. Madison, "of his 
total abstraction from party politics" — that "political conversations 
he really disliked, and therefore avoided when he could without 
affectation — or unless they were urged by others."* 

There yet remain to be considered in this explanation to Mr. 
Madison, two expressions, which will be found singularly signifi- 
cant. The first occurs in the following sentence — "Now it would 
be impossible for me to explain this publicly, without bringing on 
a personal difference between Gen. Washington and myself, ivhich 
nothing before the publication of this letter has ever done.^^ Does 
not the conclusion of this sentence contain of itself a complete 
justification of Gen. Lee, out of Mr. Jefferson's own mouth? 
What does it signify, but that although he was conscious of hav- 
ing, before this letter to Mazzei was published, given abundant 
cause to justify the personal resentment of Gen. Washington, it 
had as yet never been excited.'' What is it but telling Mr. Madi- 
son, that notwithstanding the many injurious and disparaging 
remarks, the numerous misrepresentations and calumnies in which 
he had ventured to indulge, and his correspondence and conversa- 
tions with him and other "political friends and connexions," he 
had hitherto managed to avoid a personal difference with Gen. 
Washington.^ If this be not the meaning of his words, they are 
destitute of meaning. 

[* And how is it possible that Gen. Lee could only hear of him through his 
conversations at his own table, when, according to his own account, a disdain 
of "every thing like duplicity" had subjected him to the imputation of avow- 
ing his sentiments "too frankly both in private and jmblicV Further, why 
would a public explanation, which would have limited, instead of extending, 
the censures expressed in the letter, have brought on a personal difference 
with Gen. Washington, when the habit of publicly avowing "such sentiments" 
had not involved him in that misfortune? 

"O what a tangled web we weave 

When first we practice to deceive!" 
is an exclamation the reader will find frequently forced upon him, while pur- 
suing this Mazzei controversy.] 



90 

In the succeeding remark — "It would embroil me too with all 
those with whom his character is still popular, that is with nine- 
tenths of the people of the United States" — the adverb stilt, is as 
expressive as any single word can be. The "tandem liber equus" 
of Virgil, so much celebrated bj commentators, j'ields to it in sig- 
niticancy. It unclasps a volume of our national history which has 
as yet been very little read — it developes the spirit of the volumi- 
nous correspondence I have been examining, and casts a detecting 
light on the most obscure and invidious calumnies in Mr. Jeffer- 
son's innumerable letters to Messrs. Madison and Monroe. It 
now confesses to the world what it was then intended to hint to 
these two chosen confederates, that in spite of all his efforts to de- 
stroy the popularity of Gen. Washington, there was but too good 
reason to fear that a great majority of the people of the United 
States remained still devoted to him. 

The truth is, however, that these efforts v^^ere not altogether un- 
successful. Gen. Washington did retire from office, and descended 
to his grave with a name which, though unsullied, was dimmed for 
a season by the slanders thus hatched by Mr. Jefferson, and thus 
confided to his compeers, and with a heart that was not agonized, 
only because the ethereal temper of virtue is impassive to the 
shafts of malice. This disinterested and devoted patriot was pub- 
licly threatened with impeachment, and reduced to the necessity 
of vindicating himself against an open charge of pecuniary corrup- 
tion.* And after laying down his office, he was condemned to 
learn that a leading member of Congress from his own State, had 
reproached him in debate with a want of wisdom and firmness, and 
rejoiced at his retirement as an event of national advantage.! 

In the chicanery, slander, and ingratitude, disclosed by the 
examination of this part of Mr. Jefferson's career, was laid the 
foundation of that ascendancy which he gained in the United 
States, and transmitted to his successors, Messrs. Madison and 
Monroe, — an ascendancy, that has been ascribed to patriotism, 
wisdom and justice, by a fiction as gross in its nature, and as par- 
donable in its prevalence as that which induced the Romans to 
believe that they drew their lineage from the Gods. 

The surviving partisans of Mr. Jefferson will not be proud of 
this political pedigree; but as it is traced distinctly through his 
own "Writings," has every link of its chain rivetted by his own 
authority, it will require no little address to escape from its encum- 
brance. Mr. Madison, indeed, from the supereminence of his 
reputation and talents, and the strict account that history is likely 
to take of his conduct, may feel himself called on by the publica- 

* Marshall, V. G37. 

t Ibid. pp. 722-3. Mr. Giles more than thirty years after this debate took 
place, attempted for the first time, a disavowal of his speech — but in a manner 
that made no impression to his advantage on the public mind. 



91 

tion of Mr. Jefferson's side of their correspondence to declare, 
whether, or in what degree, he conspired in those schemes which 
projected the shadow of a "dim eclipse" between the glory of 
Washington and the admiration of his tellow-citizens; and which, 
while the lustre of his name shone unclouded in other lands, 
caused it, for a space, to shed but pale and struggling beams upon 
his native country. 



LETTER VIT. 

It is now necessary to depart from the order of time observed 
in Mr. Jefferson's correspondence, and to transfer your attention 
to the explanation with which he was so kind as to drug Mr. Van 
Buren, twenty-seven years after he had administered to Mr. 
Madison the dose which has just been analysed. 

The place and power to which at the earlier era Mr. Jefferson 
was aspiring, at the latter he had gained and enjoyed. The object 
of his care had therefore become apparent consistency, and of his 
ambition, posthumous fame. The reputation of Gen. Washington, 
canonized by death, had recovered from the effects of his arts and 
calumnies, and regained its natural pre-eminence in his country's 
affection. Despairing to rival Washington with posterity, he was 
content to seek the second place in fame, and praised that illus- 
trious man when dead, from the same selfish motive, with which, 
when living, he had disparaged and traduced him. 

The letter to Mr. Van Buren (29th June, 1824, Vol. IV. p. 
399,) is too long for insertion. It appears to be in answer to one 
from that gentleman (then a Senator of the United States, from 
New York,) enclosing a publication of Mr. Pickering, which con- 
tained among other controversial matters, some remarks on this 
letter to Mazzei. The first passage that I shall notice is the fol- 
lowing — "The other allegation respecting myself, is equally falsj 
In page 34, Mr. Pickering quotes Dr. Stuart, as having twenty 
years ago informed him that Gen. Washington, 'when he became a 
private citizen,' called me to account for expressions in a letter to 
Mazzei, requiring in a tone of unusual severity an explanation of 
that letter. He adds of himself, 'in what manner the latter hum- 
bled himself, and appeased the just resentment of Washington, will 
never be known, as some time after his death, the correspondence 
was not to be found, and a diary for an important period of his 
presidency was also missing I' The diary being of transactions 



92 

duriog his presidency, the letter to Mazzei not known until some 
time after he became a private citizen, and the pretended corre- 
spondence of course after that, I know not why this lost diary and 
supposed correspondence are brought together here, unless for in- 
sinuations worthy of the letter itself. The correspondence could 
not be found, indeed, because it had never existed. I do affirm 
that there never passed a word, written or verbal, directly or indi- 
rectly, between Gen. Washington and myself on the subject of that 
letter. He would never have degraded himself so far as to take 
to himself the imputation in that letter on the 'Samsons in combat.' 
The whole story is a fabrication, and I defy the framers of it, and 
all mankind to produce the scrip of a pen between Gen. Washing- 
ton and myself on the subject, or any other evidence more worthy 
of credit than the suspicions, suppositions, and presumptions of the 
two persons here quoting and quoted for it. With Dr. Stuart I 
had not much acquaintance. I supposed him to be an honest man, 
knew him to be a very weak one, and, like Mr. Pickering, very prone 
to antipathies, boiling with party passions, and under the dominion 
of these, readily welcoming fancies for facts. But come the story 
from whomsoever it might, it is an unqualified falsehood." 

The assertion here attributed to Dr. Stuart, had been frequently 
repeated in Virginia, on other authority, as every one, acquainted 
with "the body of the time," will remember. As Mr. Pickering, 
however warm in his party feelings, was admitted on all hands, to 
be a man of truth, there is no reason to doubt that Dr. Stuart made 
the assertion: and you will be able to recollect that the statement 
made on Mr. Pickering's own authority — "added of himself" — 
respecting "the lost diary and supposed correspondence." was cur- 
rent in society, and credited by the friends of Gen. Washington, 
and by all who were familiar with those friends. If these, or such 
of them as survive should, as is probable, be led to recur to Presi- 
dent Jefferson's unexpected appointment and remote relegation of 
Gen. Washington's secretary, events which corresponded in date 
with and were supposed to have proceeded from, the loss of this 
diary and correspondence; they will be apt to conclude that by the 
same instrumentality Mr. Jefferson acquired his occult but confi- 
dent acquaintance with Gen. Lee's private letters to Gen. Wash- 
ington.* 

As for Dr. Stuart, he was a man of excellent character — a gen- 

[* If the reader will bear in mind that Gen. Lee promised Gen. Washington 
not to mention to any one else the table conversation which he communicated 
by letter, and that it is highly improbable that Washington would have talked 
of it, the supposition that Mr. Jefferson had a secret informant in Gen. Wash- 
ington's closet seems irresistible. This is further confirmed by a statement 
in the coticluding part of the letter to Mr. Van Buren, that G«n. Washington 
was "copiously nourished with falsehoods by a neighbour of mine who ambi- 
tioned to be his correspondent." How should Mr. Jefferson know any thing 
of the contents of the letters of Mr. Nicholas (the neighbour alluded to) to 
Gen. Washington, unless he was clandestinely informed of them?] 



93 

tleman, of studious habits, inoffensive deportment, and good family. 
He married the widow of Mrs. Gen. Washington's son by her first 
husband; and becoming from this connexion intimate in the family, 
by his uniform integrity and irreproachable life, engaged, and pre- 
served in a remarkable degree, Gen. Washington's confidence and 
friendship. A recorded proof of this traditionary fact, may be found 
in Marshall's Life of Washington;* and as the subject there treated 
forms one point in Mr. Jefferson's second explanation of this letter 
to Mazzei, the following quotations are doubly apposite. "Not 
long after the government came into operation. Dr. Stuart, a gen- 
tleman nearly connected with the President in friendship and by 
marriage, addressed to him a letter stating the accusations which 
were commonly circulating in Virginia on various subjects, and 
especially against the regal manners of those who administered the 
affairs of the nation." Gen. Washington's answer to this letter is 
succeeded by the following passage.! "In a subsequent letter written 
to the same gentleman, after his levees had been openly censured 
by the enemies of the administiation, he thus expressed himself; 
"Before the custom was established which now accommodates 
foreign characters, strangers, and others, who from motives of 
curiosity, respect to the chief magistrate, or any other cause, are 
induced to call upon me, I was unable to attend to any business 
whatever. For gentlemen, consulting their own convenience, rather 
than mine, were calling from the time I rose from breakfast — often 
before — until I sat down to dinner. This, as I resolved not to 
neglect my public duties, reduced me to the choice of one of these 
alternatives: either to refuse them altogether, or to appropriate a 
time for the reception of them. The first would, I well knew be 
disgusting to many — the latter I expected, would undergo animad- 
version from those who would find fault, with or without cause. I 
therefore adopted that line of conduct which combined public ad- 
vantage with private convenience, and which in my judgment was 
iinexceptionable in itself. These visits are optional. They are 
made without invitation. Between the hours of three and four, 
every Tuesday, I am prepared to receive them. Gentlemen, often 
in great numbers, come and go; — chat with each other and act as 
they please. A porter shows them into the room; and they return 
from it when they choose, and without ceremony. At their first 
entrance they salute me, and I them, and as many as I can talk to, 
I do. What pomp there is in all this 1 am unable to discover." 

These extracts, while they show the intimacy which subsisted 
between Gen. Washington and Dr. Stuart, afford an exact account 
of a social observance, which Mr. Jefferson distorts into a form of 
government, and of which his correction consisted in diminishing 
its frequency. For on New Year's day, the 4th of March, and the 

* Vui. V. p. in:;. t p. iG'x 

1^2 



94 

4th of July, he and his successors, besides the weekly levees of 
the Lady, have continued to hold these harmless re-unions. 

His own positive denial of the statement derived by Mr. Picker- 
ing from Dr. Stuart, is attempted to be confirmed by positions, which 
although of no great force, tend rather to weaken it. He suggests 
that inasmuch as the 'lost diary' related to transactions during the 
presidency of Washington, and the 'pretended correspondence' 
could not have taken place until after his presidency, the men- 
tioning these two subjects together, betrays malice and falsehood in 
the statement. Whereas, this apparent incongruity shows that the 
assertion was founded on facts either actual or supposed, and was 
not fabricated in a shape designed to slide it into credit — was not 
in fact prepared from a press copy. Political zeal which he ascribed 
in an equal degree to Dr. Stuart and Mr. Pickering, though it leads 
men to draw false inferences, is not supposed to make them mis- 
state facts. If that were the case, zeal alone, would be sufficient 
to discredit every assertion of Mr. Jefterson, in relation to the con- 
duct of the federal party, not only in the letter under considera- 
tion, but in his four volumes. 

If Dr. Stuart made the assertion at all, as we have every reason 
to believe from the nature of the circumstances connected with the 
subject of it, from the existence of an impression to that effect 
among the friends of Gen. Washington at the time, and from the 
positive and public declaration of a man of distinguished character 
and admitted veracity, it is impossible to conceive that in doing so, 
he "welcomed fancies for facts" — or dealt in "suspicions, supposi- 
tions, or presumptions. " He must have made a deliberate state- 
ment — which in the nature of things, must have been either posi- 
tively true, or absolutely false. And Mr. Jefferson in treating it 
as a. fancy, a suspicion, and a supposition, discovers how apprehen- 
sive he was of its force in a direct and tangible shape. 

The next passage proper for consideration, respects the letter to 
Mazzei, and is as follows. "Now Gen. Washington perfectly un- 
derstood what I meant by these forms, as they were frequent sub- 
jects of conversation between us. When, on my return from 
Europe, I joined the government in March, 1790, at New York, I 
was much astonished, indeed, at the mimicry I found established, 
of royal forms and ceremonies, and more alarmed at the unexpected 
phenomenon, by the monarchical sentiments I heard expressed and 
openly maintained in every company; and among others, by the 
high members of the government, executive and judiciary, (Gen. 
Washington alone excepted,) and by a great part of the legislature, 
save only some members who had been of the old congress, and a 
very few of recent introduction. I took occasion at various times, 
of expressing to Gen. Washington, my disappointment at these 
symptoms of a change of principle, and that I thought them en- 
couraged by the forms and ceremonies which I found prevailing, 
not at all in character with the simplicity of republican govern- 



95 

ment, and looking as if wishfully to those of European courts. His 
general explanations were, that when he arrived at New York, to 
enter on the executive administration of the new government, he 
observed to those who were to assist him, that placed as he was in 
an office entirely new to him, unacquainted with the forms and 
ceremonies of other governments, still less apprised of those which 
might be properly established here, andhimself perfectly indifferent 
to all forms, he wished them to consider and prescribe what they 
should be; and the task was assigned particularly to Gen. Knox, a 
man of parade, and to Col. Humphreys, who had resided some time 
at a foreign court. They, he said, were the authors of the present 
regulations, and that others were proposed so highly strained that 
he absolutely rejected them. Attentive to the difference of opinion 
prevailing on this subject, when the term of his second election 
arrived he called the heads of departments together; observed to 
them the situation in which he had been at the commencement of 
the government, the advice he had taken, and the course he had 
observed in compliance with it; that a proper occasion had now 
arrived of reviewing that course, of correcting in it any particulars, 
not approved by experience; and desired us to consult together, 
agree on any changes we should think for the better, and that he 
should willingly conform to what we should advise. We met at 
my office. Hamilton and myself agreed at once, that there was too 
much ceremony, for the character of our government; and particu- 
larly, that the parade of the installation at New York ought not to 
be copied on the present occasion, that the president should desire 
the chief justice to attend him at his chambers, that he should ad- 
minister the oath of office to him in the presence of the higher 
officers of the government, and that the certificate of the fact should 
be delivered to the Secretary of State to be recorded. Randolph 
and Knox differed from us, the latter vehemently. They thought 
it not advisable to change any of the established forms; and we 
authorized Randolph to report our opinions to the President. As 
these opinions were divided, and no positive advice given as to any 
change, no change was made. Thus the forms which I had cen- 
sured in my letter to Mazzei, were perfectly understood by Gen. 
Washington, and were those which he himself but barely tolerated. 
He had furnished me a proper occasion for proposing their reforma- 
tion, and my opinion not prevailing, he knew I could not have 
meant any part of the censure for him." 

These conversations — which are perfectly inconclusive in regard 
to the point for the maintenance of which they are adduced — if 
they ever took place, are probably misrepresented, for this among 
other reasons, that they are inconsistent with the statements of the 
principal interlocutors, upon the same subject. In the letter to 
Dr. Stuart which has been already cited. Gen. Washington de- 
clares that he found himself compelled by the incessant calls of 
visiters, "either to refuse them altogether, or to appropriate a time 



96 

for their reception." And that he adopted the latter hranch of 
the alternative "because it combined public advantage with private 
convenience, and was in his own judgment unexceptionable." 
Here is nothing like a system tormally pre-established, after a 
grave consultation with the officers of government, and a solemn 
reference to "men of parade." Its adoption was, evidently, neither 
sudden nor theoretical, but progressive and experimental, the 
result of his daily observation, and so far from being a compliance 
with the pompous predilections of others, was the deliberate choice 
of his own mind. 

This account of the levees is irrefragable, since if it could be 
supposed possible that Gen. Washington could have been betrayed 
into a mis-statement of fact, the circumstances under which he was 
writing to Dr. Stuart were of a character to induce him, rather to 
attribute these obnoxious observances to the suggestions of others, 
than to his own determination. 

As for Mr. Jeft'erson, in his introduction to the Snas, (Vol. IV. 
p. 446,) he carefully enumerates the circumstances in the political 
situation of the government which, at his arrival in New York at 
the very period in question, excited, as he says, his "wonder and 
mortification;" yet he makes not the most distant allusion to these 
levees, or to any conversation with the President respecting them. 
Again — this conversation is not reported in his diary, nor is the 
formal reference to the cabinet or meeting of its members at his 
office, noted in his memoranda; although for the month of Novem- 
ber, 1793, "when the second term of Gen. Washington's election 
had arrived," seven long conferences, five dift'erent meetings at the 
President's, and one short, silly and slanderous memorandum are 
recorded. 

Besides these various inconsistencies and contradictions, there 
is in his account to Mr. Van Buren, internal evidence of its being 
fabulous. He declares that as early as March, 1790, the principal 
persons in the government of the United States, in the Executive, 
the Legislature, and the Judiciary — the very men, by the way, 
who had just been engaged in forming the Constitution, and pre- 
vailing on the nation to adopt it, were in every company, open 
advocates for monarchy! He excepts from this comprehensive 
attainder only Gen. AVashington, who, as we have seen, was the 
avowed institutor of the terrible levees, "some members of the 
Legislature who had been of the old Congress and very few of 
recent introduction." Out of this small number of members of the 
old Congress, Adams, who was Vice-President, and Jay Chief 
justice, are to be taken: for he denounces them both repeatedly, as 
determined monarchists. So that nearly every citizen of eminence 
and power in the United States, was a decided and declared mo- 
narchist, in the couise of one year after the establishment of the 
government, except Mr. Jeft'erson himself, who neither assisted in 
framing the republican government, under which wc live, nor in 



97 

recommending it to the people, and who was far from approving 
its principal features. Can any man who recalls the names, and 
recollects the actions of these great patriots, believe this — or tell, 
if he believes Mr. Jefferson, what saved us from a monarchy? 

He makes Gen. Washington, in explaining the origin of the 
levees, assign as their proximate cause, the facts of Gen. Knox 
being '«a man of parade," and Col. Humpheys having resided at a 
foreign court. If Gen. Washington, who was so delicately respect- 
ful to the character of others, can be supposed to have uttered such 
a remark about his particular friend Gen. Knox, it is too unsuita- 
ble to the occasion to be credited. For if he knew Gen. Knox to 
be "a man of parade," and thought Col. Humpheys had become so 
from his residence at a foreign court, he must have known, that by 
submitting the question of "forms and ceremonies" to them, he 
was sure of having a pompous and high-toned system adopted. 
This would be saying to Mr. Jefterson, / am indifferent about forms 
and ceremonies, and like you, prefer the most simple ones; but on 
settling a system for our government, I adopted the very means 
which I well kneiv would ensure the establishment of the most cum- 
brous and regal etiquette that the persons around me coidd devise. 

Further, in his intercourse with others. Gen. Washington was 
perfectly well-bred, dignified, and courteous. Is it then reasona- 
ble to suppose that in a conversation with Mr. Jefterson respecting 
a custom to which he himself was not friendly, and Mr. Jefferson 
was averse, he would trace it reproachfully to the fact of one of its 
authors having resided at a foreign court, when Mr. Jefterson had 
just returned from a long diplomatic residence at a foreign court, 
and from employment as minister to two of the most powerful 
monarchies in Europe. (Vol. II. p. 4.) 

Again, after insisting that the levees, &c. were "monarchical 
forms of government," and as such censurable and dangerous, he 
here says he represented them to the President as ceremonies, 
encouraging, on his part, the monarchical sentimeyits openly and 
every where expressed, by the higher officers of every branch of the 
government, and as contrary to the simplicity of republican insti- 
tutions. And althougli he puts a long string of observations in the 
General's mouth on these ceremonies, both in the letter to Mr. 
Van Buren and the introduction to the .Anas, he makes him say 
not a word about the important and startling fact — wiiich he com- 
municated, (Vol. IV. p. 403,) that the principal men in every 
branch of the government, with few exceptions were open and 
avowed monarchists. 

Mr. Jeft'erson repeatedly asserts, notwithstanding all his insinua- 
tions to the contrary — in this letter to Mr. Van Buren, (Vol. IV. 
p. 406,) in a previous one to Dr. Jones, (p. 237) and in the intro- 
duction to his memorable Anas, (p. 450) that Gen. Washington 
"was no monarchist," "was true to the republican charge confided 
to him," and "determined to shed the last drop of his blood in its 



98 

defence.'' Can it then be deemed morally possible that Washing- 
ton could have received with inditterence under any circumstances 
at any time, or on any occasion, such intelligence from his prime 
minister; — that he would have dilated on the encouraging/orms, 
and been silent as to the deadly substance of treason, by which his 
country was menaced and he himself was surrounded. That he 
could neither have perceived, nor learned the prevalence of these 
monarchical predilections, in the officers of government associated 
with him, and in the circle of his particular friends, without the 
expression of mortification and astonishment — is undeniable, from 
the repeated admissions of Mr. Jefterson himself, as well as from 
Washington's uniform character, and the tenor of his whole life. 
And that had they been uttered by him at any period in presence 
of that careful Annalist, to suppose that they would not have been 
repeated and exaggerated both in this letter to Mr. Van Buren, 
and at all other opportunities, is to wander extravagantly into a 
new hypothesis in direct opposition to the words and spirit of this 
letter, and of all Mr. Jefferson's political writings; to the malicious 
nature of his political ambition; and to the entire system of mea- 
sures by which he promoted its gratification. 

In addition — these odious and alarming forms, which Gen. 
Washington is represented to have adopted from a venial, if not a 
culpable facility, we are assured, he formally referred to a council 
of his official advisers; in which Hamilton, the chief of the monar- 
chists, by the success of whose arts, and to advance whose projects 
they had been introduced, is the first man to join Mr. JefTerson in 
condemning them, and in advising, especially the discontinuance 
of the principal one, the inauguration of the President, in presence 
of both houses of Congress. 

This advice, too, was persisted in by Hamilton, when he knew 
that by concurring with Knox and Randolph, he would have 
ensured the preservation of these regal forms, and that by siding 
with Mr. Jefferson he decreed their instant abolition. 

Finally — this greatest of all abuses, this inevitable forerunner of 
kingly government, has been maintained in full vigour ever since, 
and was punctually observed in the inauguration of Mr. Jefferson 
himself, who, it seems, on two occasions forgot to "desire the Chief 
Justice to attend him at his chambers" — although by that omission 
in his own conscientious belief, he endangered the existence of the 
Institutions, which on both occasions, he swore "to preserve, main- 
tain, and defend." 

But all this compound of sophistry and fiction, is here, out of 
respect for the reputed authority of Mr. Jefferson, gratuitously 
exposed, as it is totally inapplicable to the point at issue. Mr. 
Jefferson confesses and insists that the letter was published in the 
American papers with the word form instead of forms, and he 
assures Mr. Van Buren in the most earnest and solemn manner, 
defying not only Mr. Pickering (who, as Mr. Van Buren was de- 



99 

sired not to publish his letter, could never hear of his defiance) and 
Dr. Stuart (wlio had been dead at least ten years,) but all man- 
kind to contradict him, "that not a word written, or verbal, direct- 
ly or indirectly, ever passed between Gen. Washington and him- 
self on the subject of this letter to Mazzei." If this was the case, 
and if the substitution of the word ybrw iov forms changed the 
direction of his censure from the ceremonies of levees, &c. to the 
principles of our government — made him instead of reprobating 
birth-night balls "express hostility to the constitution itself" how 
was it possible for Gen. Washington to "understand perfectly'* 
X\\t forms which he had censured in his letter to Mazzei? So that 
if Mr. Jefferson's earnest and repeated assurances are to be credit- 
ed — it was impossible for Gen. Washington to have had the least 
knowledge of a subject, which the same Mr. Jefterson asserts he 
perfectly understood. To support one part of his explanation he 
solemnly affirms that the \\o\x\ forms as used in his original letter 
to Mazzei, Gen. Washington never saw, nor heard of, nor con- 
ceived, nor inquired about; while to fortify another, he asseverates 
that "the ybrms which he had censured in his letter to Mazzei, 
were perfectly understood by Gen. W^ashington, and were those 
which he himself but barely tolerated." 

It seems reasonable to conclude that at this stage of the investi- 
gation, the effect of contrast will recall to your attention, the ex- 
planation that was fabricated for the era of 1797, and for the use 
and abuse of Mr. Madison. In that it was strenuously urged, as 
an insurmountable obstacle to a fair explanation or an honest ac- 
knowledgment of the letter in its genuine shape, that the correction 
of the word ybrm mio forms could not possibly be effected without 
bringing on "a personal difference with Gen. Washington." But 
here, in 1824, it is solemnly declared, by the same high and com- 
petent authority, that Gen. Washington was perfectly familiar with 
the phrase in question, completely understood its meaning, had 
conferred with Mr. Jefierson and consulted his cabinet on the sub- 
ject of it, and was necessarily satisfied that no part of the censure 
it conveyed could possibly have been directed towards himself! 

The explanation with which Mr. Van Buren was favoured thus 
proceeds — "Mr. Pickering quotes too the expression in the letter, 
of the men who were Samsons in the field, and Solomons in the 
council, but who had their heads shorn by the harlot England, or, 
as expressed in their retranslation, 'the men who were Solomons in 
council and Samsons in combat, but whose hair had been cut offby 
the whore England.' Now this expression also was perfectly un- 
derstood by Gen. Washington. He knew that I meant it for the 
Cincinnati generally, and that from what had passed between us at 
the commencement of that institution, I could not mean to include 
him." After repeating the substance of two conversations which 
he held with Gen. Washington in regard to this institution, and 
recapitulating the circumstances, which, preventing its entire and 



100 

voluntary dissolution, reduced it to "its modified and temporary 
form," he adds, "disapproving thus of the institution as much as I 
did, and conscious that I knew him to do so, he could never sup- 
pose that I meant to include him among the Samsons in the field, 
whose object was to draw over us the form, as they made the letter 
say, of the British government, and especially its aristocratic mem- 
ber, an hereditary House of Lords." 

Here you will perceive is a new version of his letter to Mazzei — 
confirming by its author's own express admission the interpretation 
I have given to the ^y or d form, whether used in the singular or 
the plural. It seems at last that the word forms, which had been 
so grievously mistranslated by "federal malice," into ybrm, really 
meant the forms, or members of the British government; that in- 
stead oi court ceremonies, these/orms were intended to signify the 
political institutions, and especially the hereditary peerage of Eng- 
land! "What becomes then of all the pother about the miraculous 
alteration which the "change of the plural into the singular, eftects 
in that phrase of the English language?" 

When you recollect that in the very last communication that 
ever "passed between Gen. AVashington and Mr. Jefferson on the 
subject of the Cincinnati," the latter had declared, (Vol. II. p. 62.) 
"I know the society wish the permanence of our governments, as 
much as any individual composing them," this asserted probability 
of Gen. "Washington's feeling assured that an insinuation by Mr. 
Jefferson of a design to overthrow our government, so far from 
being directed towards him, was "meant for the Cincinnati gene- 
rally," will strike you doubtless as singularly felicitous. 

On this part of the subject it is unnecessary to waste more time 
by referring to tlie elaborate and "true history" of this institution, 
which is cited in a former letter,* or by enlarging on the absurdity 
of supposing that Mazzei or any one else in the old or in the new 
world, could divine that the reproach and calumny, respecting "the 
Samsons in combat and Solomons in council" contained in the 
letter, was intended for the Cincinnati; or that Gen. Washington 
who was actually their president, would on that supposition feel 
himself exempt from its censure. For there is one fact that seems 
not to have been attended to by Mr. Jefferson, in the glow of his 
invention and invective in regard to this matter, that renders all 
other objections to them superfluous. It is this — he tells Mazzei 
that all the miscliief and iniquity, which are the subject of his letter, 
the burthen of his song, had arisen since Mazzei's departure from 
the United States — "since you left us." Now among the few truths 
which are bequeathed to posterity in the "philosophic inspiration" 
of JeJ/erson's writings, is the fact, that this Florentine, who, like 
his countryman, Cassio, was 

'A fellow almost damned in a fair wife,' 
* Letter II. 



101 

left the United States long after the Society of the Cincinnati was 
instituted, long after it had cast oft' its hereditary quality, and re- 
ceived its "modified and temporary form." For in a letter from 
Paris to John Page, (Vol. I. p. 288.) dated the 20th of August, 
1785, Mr. Jefterson says, "I received your friendly letter of April 
the 28th, by Mazzei on the 22nd July." In one of the 28th of 
August to Mr. Monroe, then in the United States, he says, "I wrote 
you on the 5th of July by Mr. Franklin, and on the 12th of the 
same month byMr. Houdon. Since that date yours of June the 16th 
by Mr. Mazzei, has been received." It is clear therefore that 
Mazzei left the United States between the 16th of June and the 
22nd of July, 1785. From Marshall we learn, that this society 
was instituted in the year 1783, and that in May, 1784, the here- 
ditary principle, and the power of adopting honorary members, were 
relinquished.* Mr. Jeft'erson confirms this account himself, as you 
have already seen, and may see again by turning to pages 223 and 
416 of his first volume. Between his explanation to Mr. Van Buren 
and the truth, therefore, there is interposed by himself nothing less 
than an abyss of absolute impossibility. 

To render this not only evident but palpable, it is only necessary 
to mark the train of causation, and the succession of time embraced 
in his letter to Mazzei. Of time, the earliest stage is the period of 
that personage's departure from the United States — of causes, the 
first is the springing up of an Anglican, monarchical and aristo- 
cratical, party. The immediate effect of this cause is the "drawing 
over us the forms of the British government," and the secondary 
one which is said to be in progress "the drawing over us" its sub- 
stance likewise. Then succeed, the enumeration of various "here- 
sies," "the Samsons in combat and the Solomons in council," who 
had gone over to them — these successive events all subsequent to the 
grand era of Mazzei's departure from the United States — and the 
apostasy of the "Samsons and Solomons" so unexpected and shock- 
ing, that were Mr. Jefferson to name them, it would give his Floren- 
tine friend "a fever." Whoever therefore attaches the smallest 
credit to Mr. Jefferson's solemn and anxious and iterated imputa- 
tions against the Cincinnati, or to this elaborate explanation of his 
letter to Mazzei, must in all consistency, not only believe that 
effects are antecedent to their causes, but that an event which hap- 
pened in 1785 — was previous in point of time, to one that took 
place two years before. 

He continues to Mr. Van Buren, — "Add to this, that the letter 
saying, that 'two out of the three branches of Legislature were 
against us,' was an obvious exception of him; it being well known 
that the majorities in the two branches of Senate and Representa- 
tives were the very instruments which carried in opposition to the 
old and real republicans, the measures which were the subjects of 
condemnation in this letter." Mr. Van Buren is also told on a pre- 

* Vol. V. pp. 27, 30. 
13 



i02 

vioUs page, that "a taitliful copy" of the letter to Mazzei, so far as 
it related to politics, is inclosed to him. But the "faithful copy" 
since given to the public, of the same letter, admits not the possi- 
bility of excluding Gen. Washington in the mode here essayed, for 
it says expressly, "against us are the Executive, the Judiciary, two 
out of three branches of the Legislature," &c. Now is it possible 
to conceive that when a man accuses the Executive of the United 
States of treason, he means to except the President from that 
charge.** The second article of the Constitution declares — 'The 
executive power of the United States shall be vested in a Presi- 
dent' — language which confirms the universal acceptation of the 
terms. If then Mr. Van Buren's press copy resembled the letter 
now published, as closely as the President and the Executive 
resemble each other in signification, he must have felt his credulity 
not a little strained by the course of Mr. Jefferson's misstatement 
and sophistry. It would seem therefore not improbable that as in 
the case of the letter to Col. Burr, his press had the faculty of pro- 
ducing dissimilar copies of the same document, and that in the one 
furnished to Mr. Van Buren, the word Executive at least was 
omitted. 

Again — At the time Mr. Jefferson wrote the slander in question 
to Mazzei, the administration was in a minority in the House of 
Representatives as he himself observes in a letter to Mr. Madison, 
when censuring the ratification of Jay's treaty, (Vol. III. p. 316.) 
"For it certainly is an attempt of a party, who find they have lost 
their majority in one branch of the Legislature, to make a law by 
the aid of tlie other branch and the Executive, &c*" Indeed, as 
early as the session of 1793, the opposition obtained an ascendancy 
in the House of Representatives, as was proved by the election of 
their candidate for tlie Speaker's chair by a majority often votes.* 

But independently of this fact, the measures principally con- 
demned in this letter, were not legislative measures; they were, as 
Mr. Jefferson asserts, the executive and monarchical levees, balls, 
&.C. — 'and the aristocratical order of tiie Cincinnati. So that 
according to his explanation, the desperate effort to separate the 
President from the Executive is labour in vain. 

To these principcd subjects accordingly he immediately recurs 
in the following passage — "Gen. Washington then, understanding 
perfectly what and whom I meant to designate, in both phrases," 
(that is by the form or forms of the British government, and 'the 
Samsons in combat and Solomons in Council') "and that they 
could not have had any application or view to himself, could find 
in neither any c^use of offence to himself; and therefore neither 
needed, nor ever asked any explanation of them from me. Had 
it been otherwise, they must know very little of Gen. Washington 
who should believe to be within the laws of his character, whatDr.- 
Stuaft is said to have imputed to him. Be this, however as it may, 

* Marshal], Vol. V. p. 474. 



103 

the story is infamously false in every article of it. My last part- 
ing with Gen. Washington was at the inauguration of Mr. Atlams 
in March, 1797, and was warmly attectionate; and I never had any 
reason to believe any change on his part, as there certainly was 
none on mine. But one session of Congress intervened between 
that and his death, in the year following, in my passage to and 
from which, as it happened not to be convenient to call on him, I 
never had another opportunity; and as to the cessation of corre- 
spondence observed during that short interval, no particular cir- 
cumstance occurred for epistolary communication, and both of us 
were too much oppressed with letter writing, to trouble either the 
other with a letter about nothing." 

This may all be very smooth and fine, and commendable, as a 
specimen of fluent narration, but unfortunately, like most of Mr. 
Jefferson's deliberate statements, it is by hisown testimony, totally 
destitute of truth. You will observe that the chief fact here relied 
on to disprove tlie statement of Dr. Stuart, is that Mr. Jefferson 
enjoyed, as far as he had reason to believe the ivarm and affection- 
ate friendship of Gen. Washington, up to the moment of that great 
man's death. Now if we turn to page 453 of this same fourth 
volume — where Mr. Jefferson is solemnly recommending the con- 
tents of his Anas to the faith of posterity, we shall find the follow- 
ing statement, dated the 4th of February, 1818. — "The opposition, 
too, of the Republicans to the British treaty, and the zealous sup- 
port of the Federalists in that unpopular but favourite measure of 
theirs, had made him (Gen. Washington) all their own. Under- 
standing, moreover, that I disapprovetl of that treaty, and copiously 
nourished with fiilsehoods by a malignant neighbour of mine, who 
ambitioned to be his correspondent, he had become alienated from 
my self personally , as from the Republican party, generally, of his 
fellow-citizens." This positive declaration, similar to one made 
four years previously to Dr. Jones, (Vol. IV. p, 237,) stamps in- 
delible falsehood on the story spun out so elaborately for Mr. Van 
Buren, and would appear to supersede all further notice of it. 

But Mr. Jefferson, though he seldom relates the truth, either 
with regard to himself or his adversaries, often suffers it to tran- 
spire. Now although Mr. Pickering and Dr. Stuart were both 
men of veracity, and maintained through life, the one, a respecta- 
ble, and the other an eminent, reputation; yet as the statement 
made successively by them has the questionable character of hear- 
say, and is pointedly denied by Mr. Jefferson, it may perhaps be 
supposed by prejudiced minds to be founded in error^ — either that 
Dr. Stuart was himself misinformed, or had been misunderstood 
by Mr. Pickering. An attentive examination of Mr. Jefferson's 
contradiction, however, positive and vindictive as it is, will con- 
vince the most incredulous, that the veracity of those two gentle- 
men is entirely unimpeached by it, and that their statement having 
all the weight due to their characters, and the force derived from a 



104 

strong contemporaneous impression in its confirmation, known to 
many by memory, and by tradition to more, is, according to the 
established rules of reasoning in such cases, to be received as accu- 
rately and indisputably true. 

The objections by which Mr. Jefferson endeavours to discredit 
this statement consist of assertions of fact, and of inferences from 
those assertions. But his assertions, or as he would say, his facts, 
turn out to be false, and consequently authorize a conclusion as 
different from his inferences as truth is from falsehood — that is, 
they authorize a full belief in, instead of an utter disbelief which 
he insists upon, of the statement. For example, he argues that as 
Gen. Washington understood perfectly what he meant by both 
phrases in the letter to Mazzei, he could have taken no offence at 
either of them; and, that as he could have taken no offence, he 
needed no explanation; and that as he needed no explanation, he 
demanded none. But it has been proved to demonstration on Mr. 
Jeft'erson's own authority, that inasmuch as Gen. Washington had 
never seen the phrase — "the forms of the British government" — 
and had received no explanation of its alleged mistranslation, he 
could not in the nature of things have understood it as Mr. Jeffer- 
son declares it was meant; and that from the limitation of time, to 
a period posterior to the establishment, and even to the modifica- 
tion, of the Cincinnati, an absolute impossibility stood in the way 
of his conceiving the phrase "Samsons and Solomons" in the sense 
assumed and insisted on by Mr. Jefferson. It therefore follows in 
a chain of unbroken deduction, connected by the same reasoning 
"which Mr. Jefferson employs on the same subject — that Gen. 
Washington must have taken offence at "both phrases;" that as he 
took offence at them he needed an explanation; and that as he 
needed an explanation he demanded it. This conclusion may 
throw some additional light on "the lost correspondence." 

The insinuation that such a step would have been inconsistent 
with "the laws of Gen. Washington's character," is especially im- 
material as coming from Mr. Jefferson, who declares, as has been 
already remarked, that on the mere mention of a pasquinade the 
object of which was to represent Gen. Washington as aiming to 
make himself king, "he got into one of those passions when he 
cannot command himself," and cried out before his whole cabinet, 
"that by God, he had rather be in his grave than in his present 
situation," (Vol. IV. p. 491.) Now if a mere anonymous lampoon 
could inflame him to such a degree of fury, is it difficult to sup- 
pose, or does it transgress "the laws of character" and probability 
to believe that an accusation of the same tendency, coming before 
the public in a written form, from one of the most eminent men for 
official station and reputed talents in the country, a man who had 
all along professed a warm and even a zealous friendship for him, 
and had a short time before conjured him not to listen to any in- 



105 

formation tending "to sow tares between then^" — should excite his 
indignation and resentment? 

The assertion that they had a "warmly affectionate" parting at 
Philadelphia in March, 1797 — which is flatly contradicted by a 
declaration to Dr. Jones (p. 237) — so far from obviating this infer- 
ence, fortifies itj for the more warm had been Gen. Washington's 
affection for Mr. Jefferson while he supposed him to be his friend, 
the more strong would be his indignation at finding him his enemy. 
March, 1797, the period of Mr. Adams's inauo;uration, was the 
precise time of Gen. Washington's becoming a private citizen, and 
Mr. Jefferson assures us that the letter to Mazzei "was not known 
here until after he became a private citizen." 

When to all these contradictions, misstatements, inconsisten- 
cies, and false inferences, is added the admitted fact, that after the 
publication of the letter to Mazzei in the American papers, Mr. 
Jefferson held no correspondence with Gen. Washington, that 
from his own writings it appears that he passed his house without 
calling, at least six different times in going to and returning from 
Congress^ (three sessions instead of one having intervened j) and 
when we recollect too, the real fondness of the General, and the 
professed predilection of the philosopher, for agriculture; that the 
former had but lately laid down the office of President and the 
latter assumed that of Vice President, and that in the interval of 
this strict non-intercourse, Washington had accepted the apppint- 
ment of Lieutenant-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Ame- 
rican army, an event that attracted the attention of Europe* — it is 
impossible to avoid the conclusion that an estrangement had arisen 
between them. Mr. Jefferson protests to Mr. Van Buren that "no 
change had taken place on his part. It follows, then, that it occur- 
red on the part of Gen. Washington — that he was indignant at 
finding himself the sport of Mr. Jefferson's malicious hypocrisy — 
that he had imprudently confided in his insincere professions, and 
too long neglected the faithful counsels of his friend Gen. Lee. 

This subject being now disposed of, (though it might have been 
despatched in a less tedious manner but for the huge disproportion 
between Mr. Jefferson's virtues and popularity) you will, I think, 
be convinced that not only are the two explanations of his letter to 
Mazzei inconsistent with each other, but that each of them sepa- 
rately is inconsistent with truth. You will also, I apprehend, be 
compelled to conclude, that the imputations contained in that let- 
ter, upon Gen. W'ashington and his principal friends, were un- 
founded in fact and calumnious in spirit; that the equivocating 
refusal to avow and explain it, betrayed at once pusillanimity, and 
malice; and that the gross and deliberate misstatements by which 
it is justified, first to Mr. Madison, and last to Mr. Van Buren, 
are sufficient to deprive Mr. Jefferson's most solemn assertions, in 

• Memoires de Napoleon, tome II. p. 110. (Grourgaud.) 



106 

all cases in which his interests are concerned, or his passions 
enlisted, of the slightest claim whatever to credit.* 

[* I should deem what is said in the text in relation to the Mazzei letter 
and the controversies which have arisen out of it, as having exhausted the 
■whole subject, and requiring neither corroboration or supplemenl, were it not 
for Mr. Tucker's remarks in regard to it. They are contained between pages 
518 and 528 in the first volume of his Life of Jefferson. Nor would I have the 
judicious reader to suppose that I deem the intrinsic force of those remarks 
sufficient to entitle them to the notice I am about to bestow on them. But 
"when I reflect on the manner and the place in which this biography has been 
got up, and the auspices under which it was ushered into the world, as well 
as some other circumstances which will appear in the sequel, it seems to be 
• the safer course not to permit this portion of that work to escape exposure. 

When these "Observations on the Writings of Jefferson" were first pub- 
lished, they excited that attention which it was natural to expect for a work 
of such ability, boldness and novelty, on a subject so interesting to the Ameri- 
can public. Rumours were rife of a thousand pens ready to leap from their 
inkstands to vindicate the fame of the hero of American jacobinism. Reflec- 
tion, however, gave them the early advice of Sancho to Don Gluixote, to turn 
back while the world was yet unapprized of his having undertaken his high 
adventures; and wiser than the Knight, they all took it. At the University 
of Virginia, however, within sight of Monticello, and a short ride of the 
whole magazine of press-copies which had been there collected, it was for some 
time thought that the genius and resources of the learned brotherhood might 
produce something to parry this attack upon Mr. Jefferson's reputation, and 
(what was of more difficulty) render his own writings less destructive to his 
fame. From tlie anxious cogitations employed upon this subject resulted, 
it would seem, Mr. Tucker's book, which was to be an abridgement of Mr. 
Jefferson's Writings, interspersed with such remarks and reflections as might 
best serve to cover their imperfections, neutralize their poison, and avert the 
blows which they drew upon their author. How well Mr. Tucker has per- 
formed this task it is no part of mine to examine; but I must beg him to sepa- 
rate as completely my respect for him, from that with which I may seem to 
treat his book, eis he assures us Mr. Jefferson did his respect for the character 
of Washington, from that with which he regarded his measures. Nor will I 
here withhold the praise I think due to his book — that as an abridgement of 
Mr. Jefferson's Writings it is tolerably fair, — that hi.s efforts to be candid are 
not unfrequent, and the more laudable as they are evidently painful, — and that 
the occasional success of those efforts afford to the judicious reader a sufficient 
antidote to the bane of those Writings and that character, which Mr. Tucker 
holds up to the admiration of mankind. But how lamentable an absence his 
work shows of that earnestness in the pursuit of truth, which is the highest 
virtue of the historian, the following remarks will show. 

Mr. Tucker says that we have abundant evidence to satisfy a candid in- 
quirer, that Gen. Washington was not "designated in that passage of the let- 
ter which says, 'against us are the executive, and two out of three branches of 
the legislature,'" nor "comprehended among the apostates, who, though Sam- 
sons in the field, and Solomons in the council," &c. And what is this abun- 
dant evidenced Why, that "not only in his, (Mr. Jefferson's) diary, does he 
repeatedly express his conviction that Gen. Washington was a republican in 
his attachments," "but also in several of his letters to individuals of the same 
party as himself; and in the long letter he wrote to Gen. Washington to dis- 
suade him from retiring at the end of the first term, he nut only would not 
have urged him to continue, if he had believed that his principles were 
opposed to those to which he showed through life such a rooted attachment, 
and on which his hopes of favour with his countrymen rested, but he would 
never have ventured to censure f^o roundly as he did in that letter the princi- 
ples which he believed were those of Gen. Washington. This letter, then, is 



107 



LETTER Vlil. 

We have at length reached the point of time, in the progress of 
this tasteless but not unfruitful investigation, at which the letter 

of itself utterly inconsistent with the fact that he intended to comprehend in. 
his letter to Mazzei him, whom he had at all other times excepted. They 
were plainly meant for Hamilton, Adams, Jay, the Pinkneys, and some others 
who had been distinguished in the revolution as soldiers or statesmen, and 
who then guided the executive councils, hut who, by their Anglican attach- 
ments and antigallican prejudices, were endeavouring as much as they could 
to assimilate our government to that of Great Britian." 

As the foregoing extract contains both assertions and inferences, it will be 
proper to consider, first, its statements, and then its logic. It asserts that Mr. 
Jefferson "had at all other times excepted" Gen. Washington from the re- 
proaches which the letter to Mazzei cast upon his advisers. Yet the very 
next topic to which this biographer adverts is introduced by the following ex- 
tract of a letter of Mr. Jefferson to Col. Monroe, (page 528:) "You will have 
seen by the proceedings of congress the truth of what I always observed to 
you, that one man outweighs them all in influence over the people, who have 
supported his judgment against their own and that of their representatives. 
Republicanism must lie on its oars; resign the vessel to its pilot; and themselves 
to the course he thinks best for them." The father of the republic is the "one 
man" {one is italicised in Mr. Tucker's text,) here alluded to, as forcing repub- 
licanism to lie upon its oars, and the conduct which produces this unhappy 
result is charged to proceed from "his judgment," and not that of any ad- 
visers. 

In the same volume at page 379, Mr. Tucker has recorded another proof of 
Mr. Jefferson's pretended suspicions of Gen. Washington's monarchical ten- 
dencies, and of how calmly and closely Mr. Jefferson watched for words and 
incidents which might be tortured into proofs of them. "The President (Wash- 
ington) then remarked, that 'he did not like throwing too much into demo- 
cratic hands, for that if they did not do what the constitution called on them 
to do, the government would be at an end, and must then assume another form.'" 
He stopped here; and Mr. Jefferson remarks: "I kept silence, to see whether 
he would say any thing more in the same line, or add any qualifying expres- 
sion to soften what he had said; but he did neither." 

Mr. Tucker (page 513) abridges a letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Giles, dated 
December 31, 1795, in which the writer imputes to Mr. Edmund Randolph's 
"want of firmness the President's habitual concert with the British and anti- 
republican party," and "warmly condemns that disposition to halt between 
two parties, and deems it to be as immoral as to pursue a middle line between 
honest men and rogues." 

These are some of many contradictions, which Mr. Tucker has himself re- 
corded, of his assertion (bat Mr. Jefferson "had at all other times excepted" 
Gen. Washington from reproaches like those contained in the Mazzei letter. 

Another assertion of the extract under consideration is, that, at the date of 
the Mazzei letter, (April 24th, 1796,) Hamilton, Adams, Jay, the Pinkneys, 
and some others then guided the executive councils. To appreciate fully the 
gratuitousness, (considering the character of Washington, it must be added,) 
the impudence of this statement, the reader must bear in mind that not one of 
the persons here named was a member of the cabinet at the period referred to: 



108 

that gave occasion to it, was written. In pursuing it you will 
find, that notwithstanding the professions of friendship, respect. 



That body then consisted of Col. Pickering, Mr. Wolcot, Col. M'Henry, and 
Mr. Charles Lee. If there be any so besotted with Jejfersonianism as to be- 
lieve, that he who by the suffrages of all mankind has been regarded as the 
Colossus of American independence, and the father of the republic, was habi- 
tually the tool of others, can they suppose that his justice, which has been so 
universally lauded, could have permitted him to fix the responsibility of the 
executive conduct upon one set of men, while it was under the guidance of 
anotherl Yet Mr. Tucker asserts this to be the fact, and that the reproaches 
of Mr. Jefferson against the executive "were^Zai/iZ?/ meant" for these illustrious 
men, who were in no way connected with that department. This is going 
beyond and contradicting Mr. Jefferson himself, who in his letter to Mr. 
Madison plainly admits that Washington was included in the reproached 
executive, and in that to Mr. Van Buren, is silent upon that conclusive word, 
and divides his censures of the Samsons and Solomons among the whole 
Society of the Cincinnati. 

So much for Mr. Tucker's statements — now for his logic. To appreciate 
the force of that, the reader must bear in mind that the charge against Mr. 
Jefferson is of duplicity — that while he praised Washington to himself and his 
friends, he secretly traduced him to answer his own sinister ends, and that as 
a proof of the latter branch of this charge, his letter to his Italian gossip is 
referred to. And what is it that Mr. Tucker so confidently pronounces as "of 
itself uUerlij inconsistent with the fact that he intended to comprehend" Gen. 
Washington in that precious epistle? Why, that several years before, "he 
wrote a long letter to the General to dissuade him from retiring at the end of 
the first term." And why is that "utterly inconsistent with the fact that he 
wrote a letter abusive of Gen. Washington several years after"? Why, first, 
says Mr. Tucker, because "he would not have urged him to continue" in otiice 
if he had believed him to entertain monarchical attachments. But Mr. Tucker 
says that Mr. Adams was comprehended in this abuse, was "endeavouring as 
much as he could to assimilate our government to that of Great Britain;" and 
has also recorded (page 532) while the first contest for the presidency was 
pending between Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson, (the very year of the letter to 
Mazzei) the latter wrote to Mr. Madison "to urge on his behalf that Mr. 
Adams should be preferred on the ground of seniority, both as to years and 
public services," in case "of an equality of electoral votes between" them, and 
said that "he was impelled both by duly and inclination" to take that course. 
Thus it seems by Mr. Tucker's own showing, that Mr. Jefferson might urge 
the election to the presidency of one comprehended in the reproachful clauses 
of the letter to Mazzei. Mr. Tucker must, therefore, be driven to rely solely 
on his second reason to establish the utter inconsistency he contends for, viz: 
that Mr. Jefterson "would never have ventured to censure so roundly as he did 
in that letter (the long one to Gen. Washington) the principles which he be- 
lieved were those of Gen. Washington." 

This will be readily admitted. No one pretends, or can be so stupid as to 
imagine that Mr. Jefferson really believed Gen. Washington to entertain 
monarchical attachments, or to have ever "acted in concert" with a party 
which was "British and anti-republican." Mr. Jefferson is charged with 
asserting, not what he believed to be true of Gen. Washington, but what he 
knew to be false; and Mr. Tucker relies on the truth of one half of the charge 
to disprove the whole of it! Verily if he will teach the law students of the 
University to meet actions of slander by so simple a process, our courts will 
soon cease to be troubled with that pestiferous class of cases. 

Having thus summarily and satisfactorily (to himself at least,) disposed of 
the first in his arrangement of the charges against Mr. Jefferson, growing out 
of the Mazzei letter, he next essays to dissipate those which relate to the sup- 



109 

meditation, and retirement; notwithstanding the new declaration 
of fidelity and devotion which it was intended to prefer to Gen. 



posed correspondence between Gen. Washington and Mr. Jefferson subsequent 
to the retirement of the former from the presidency. The biographer treats 
the alleged suppositions on this subject as nearly gratuitous; and rests this con- 
clusion upon Mr. Jefferson's denial and the nature of the testimony which 
alone is opposed to that denial. But it is the duty of the historian to collect as 
"well as to weigh evidence, and the sources from which to seek it in reference 
to this subject were well known, and peculiarly accessible, to Mr. Tucker. 
What would have been the result of properly directed inquiries by him is ap- 
parent from the following correspondence, which proves, too, that one at least 
of Mr. Tucker's assertions, viz: that "710 one is alive who pretends to have heard. 
RawliJis make the assertion" is perfectly gratuitous. 

Ra^vensworth, December 1, 1838. 

My Dear Sir, — Thepublicationof Mr. Jefferson's "Writings," and of works 
to which they have given rise, has directed attention anew to the subject of a 
correspondence, which is alleged to have taken place between Gen. Washing- 
ton and Mr. Jefferson, after the former retired from the Presidency. You are 
aware that, in a letter to Mr. Van Buren, dated June 29, 1824, Mr. Jellerson 
denied that any letters whatever passed between Gen. Washington and him- 
self after the period referred to. For though his denial is pointed more par- 
ticularly against any correspondence between them on the subject of his famous 
letter to Mazzei, it extends plainly enough to the existence of any upon any 
subject. His words are — "My last parting with Gen. Washington was at the 
inauguration of Mr. Adams, in March, 1797, and was warmly affectionate; 
and I never had any reason to believe any change on his part, as there cer- 
tainly was none on mine. But one session of congress intervened between 
that and his death, the year following, in my passage to and from which, as it 
happened to be not convenient to call on him, 1 never had another opportu- 
nity; and as to the cessation of correspondence observed during that short inter- 
val, no particular circumstance occurred for epistolary communication, and 
both of us were too much oppressed with letter writing to trouble either the 
other with a letter about nothing." 

It is obvious that any correspondence, and especially an angry one, between 
Washington and Jefferson, after March, 1797, is incompatible with the vera- 
city of the foregoing extract. Still I should deem the argument on this sub- 
ject in Major Lee's "Observations on the Writings of Jetferson" sufficient to 
satisfy candid inquirers after truth, were it not for the statements Professor 
Tucker has given to the world in his recent biography of that gentleman. 
He says, at page 524 of the first volume of that work, "The supposition," viz: 
of the correspondence in question, "seems to be either a mere inference from 
doubtful facts, or to rest on vague, unsupported and improbable rumour." Then 
after stating the inference and arguing against its justice, he adds, "There was 
also a rumour on this subject that Rawlins, whom Gen. Washington employed 
about ihis time as an amanuensis, told a merchant in Alexandria that he had 
copied a letter from the General to Mr. Jefferson relative to the Mazzei letter, 
which was so very severe "i^ made his hair stand on end. ''^ I have inquired 
into this story, and it seems as unsupported as the rest. Rawlins is dead; and 
■iio one is alive vjho pretends to have heard Raivlins make the assertion.''' 

Knowing how long Mr. Tucker has enjoyed your intimate acquaintance, I 
confess I was surprised at the assertion with which this extract concludes. 
Recollecting how often he has seen from your door the trees of Mount 
Vernon, — how well he knew yournear relationship to Gen. Washington, your 
double connexion with his family, and the strong likelihood of your being able 
to give him authentic information concerning its traditions, — it seemed to me 
so natural and proper that he should have applied to you Avhen inquiring "into 
14 



110 

Washington, and the new grant of confidence which it actually 
extracted from him: the same deceitful and injurious practices. 



the truth of this story," (as he undertakes to call the assertions of such men as 
Col. Pickering and Dr. Stuart,) that it is even yet with difficulty that I can 
reconcile the respect I feel for Mr. Tucker with his omission to have done so. 
You will see, at once, the natural effect of the part he has taken. It may now 
be fairly and forcibly urged — that here is a work, assuming the character of 
impartial history, written by a gentleman whose children are the grandchil- 
dren of the niece of Washington — that the author's connexion wilh the family 
of that illustrious man, while it afforded the means of obtaining that more 
intimate knowledge of him which is seldom transferred to history, naturally 
made him also more anxious to disseminate it accurately — yet he treats the 
assertion of a nearer connexion of that same family as an idle story. It cannot 
be supposed that he did so until he had exhausted those sources of information 
on the subject, to which he had the easiest access, and as he obtained none 
worthy of his regard it must be presumed that none such existed. 

I think you will agree with me that truth in relation to this point of history 
is in danger of suppression, and that too, to the detriment of the characters of 
those whom you respect, and to the undue advantage of the reputation of one, 
whom the family of Washington (as far as I have the honour of their acquaint- 
ance,) regard with a very different sentiment. To prevent this is an object of 
sufficient importance, I hope, to entitle me to your compliance with the re- 
quest which is the object of this letter, and to justify which I have fatigued you 
with this long preface. Will you, my dear sir, give me a written statement of 
whatever your memory can furnish on the subject of this last correspondence'? 
It is proper to tell you that, with your permission, I shall make use of the tes- 
timony you may furnish in the edition of Major Lee's "Observations on the 
Writings of Mr. Jefferson," which I am preparing for the press. Please there- 
fore make it as circumstantial as you can conveniently; for details will carry 
that conviction to the minds of strangers, which your character will exact from 
those who know you. But however brief your statement, it will be important, 
and gratefully received by, dear sir, 

Yours, most sincerely, 

C. C. LEE. 

To Lawrence Lewis, Esq. 

Dear Sir, — In compliance with your request, I now send you all the informa- 
tion I have upon the subject of the letters said to have passed between Gen. 
Washington and Mr. Jefferson, a short time before the death of the General: 
I resided at Mount Vernon at the time. An old friend, Mr. Francis Thorn- 
ton, and Mr. Samuel Washington called to see me. After dinner, whilst sitting 
round the table, Col. Tobias Lear andG. W. P. Custis, being also present, Mr. 
Thornton inquired, "if a very friendly correspondence had not taken place 
between Gen. Washington and Mr. Jefferson, but a short time before the Gene- 
ral's death — that such was the report in Fredericksburg." I answered, it must 
be one of the many reports in circulation, without the least foundation. Col. 
Lear immediately said, "Yes, it is so, for I have seen the letters." (At this time 
Col. Lear had been put in possession of all Gen. Washington's letters and papers 
by the late Judge Washington, and was daily in the office arrangingandselecting 
those papers necessary for the Biography of Washington.) I stated my reasons 
for supposing it a mere report, and reminded Col. Lear of a conversation which 
had taken place between himself. Gen. Washington, and Dr. David Stuart, 
when I was present. He said, "yes, but it was after that." It so happened, 
that Dr. Stuart came to Mount Vernon that evening. I informed him of Lear's 
assertion. He appeared to doubt it, and referred to the conversation between 
Lear, Gen. Washington and himself, when I was present. He then remarked, 
I shall see Lear in Alexandria in the morning, and will get him to be more 



I 



Ill 

which have been already exposed, were unrelentingly persevered 
in by Mr. Jefferson. On the 10th of July, less than one month 



explicit. Upon his return to Mount Vernon, he informed me he had seen Lear, 
who repeated to him what he had said at the table the day before, but refused 
to communicate the contents of the letters — and asserted, they 2vcre of a very 
friendly nature. The Doctor still doubted the accuracy of Col. Lear's state- 
ment, and requested me to invite Mr. Rawlins, (Gen. Washington's confiden- 
tial clerk,) to walk with us. During our walk, the Doctor asked him if he had 
any recollection of a correspondence between Gen. Washington and Mr. Jef- 
ferson, but a short time before the General's death. Rawlins answered, yes. 
Dr. Stuart, "Will you tell us the supject of those lettersl" Mr. Rawlins, "I 
feel myself bound to secrecy in every thing relating to the General's letters." 
But you can say whether they were of a friendly nature or not," said Dr. 
Stuart. Rawlins, "I think I may venture so far — they were not.^' The first 
was, he said, rather a letter of inquiry, the second one was so severe, and ex- 
cited his feelings so much, that the hair appeared to rise on his head, as he 
recorded it, and he felt that it must produce a duel — that the third letter wasof 
a milder tone, but not a very gratifying one. The above is what I heard Raw- 
lins say myself. Various were the conjectures, as to the cause which pro- 
duced this correspondence. Dr. Stuart was of opinion it must have been the 
Mazzei letter, and under that impression his communication to Col. Pickering 
was made. It is proper to state, that Mr. Rawlins was highly respectable, and 
esteemed by all the members of the family at Mount Vernon. 

Be pleased to accept the regard and esteem of vour friend, 

LAWR. LEWIS. 
WooDLAWN, January Ibth, 1839. 

The fourth charge in the progress of Mr. Tucker's vindication is, "that he 
(Mr. Jefierson) attempted to show in his letter to Mr. Van Buren, that the term 
(what termi) did not comprehend General Washington, because by the two 
branches of the legislature, he meant the two Houses of Congress; whereas it 
was notorious, as he himself admitted, that a majority of the House of Repre- 
sentatives were at that time members of the republican or opposition party. 
This must be admitted; but it is only an evidence of his lapse of memory, in 
grounding an argument on a subordinate fact, in support of what he knew to 
be the truth." 

As well prepared as the reader must be, by this time, to meet with curious 
things in Mr. Tucker's logic, he will be surprised at the specimen of it con- 
tained in the last sentence. The question for consideration is, whether Gen. 
Washington was comprehended among those "two of the three branches of the 
legislature," which came within the reproaches of the Mazzei letter? Mr. 
Tucker admits that the House of Representatives could not have been in that 
predicament, because Mr. Jeflrer.son knew, at the time, that its majority was of 
his own party. But he says this is "a subordinate fact," and would have us 
infer that therefore it is not necessary to the truth of an argument grounded 
upon it. Without dwelling upon this peculiar quality of a "subordinate fact," 
I will ask how it comes to be subordinate! Mr. Jefferson admits that he re- 
proached tivo out of three branches of the legislature in April, 1796; but asserts 
that these two were the two Hou.ses of Congress. Mr. Tucker says, No — this 
is a mistake — a lapse of memory natural enough to an octogenarian; he could 
not have included the popular branch of the legislature in the censure referred 
to. How is that a subordinate fact in the chain of reasoning to show that the 
President and Senate were the two branches which were denounced! In lan- 
guage, new it must be confessed to the writers on the Constitution, the legisla- 
tive department is divided by Mr. Jefferson into three branches, the President, 
Senate and House of Representatives. Tt;o of these are distinctly denounced 



112 

subsequently, he thus broadly insinuates to Mr. Monroe (Vol. III. 
p. 335,) that Gen. Washington is a monarchist and a man of 



by the author of this novel division, and nearly thirty years after a question 
arises as tu which tv-o of the three, that denunciation is to be justly applied to. 
It is clearly ascertained that the House of Representatives cannot be, and 
never could have been, visited with it — Is not that a cowcteire fact to show that 
it ever did, and ever must, rest upon the President and Senate"? As to Mr. 
Tucker's attempt, in a note on the following page, to confound lapses of memory 
of this magnitude, and about the important and impressive events which agitate 
the prime of life, with such as regard the words of his own name, or the letters 
in Dr. Dunglison's, — it shows much more clearly the weakness of his cause, 
than the justness of his views of the understanding. Another error of Mr. 
Tucker's is not unimportant, as showing the carelessness with which he 
handles his historical materials. He says the only mistake in the letter to Mr. 
Van Buren is the one already admitted; whereas there is evidently another. 
For Mr. Jefferson says in that letter, that but one session of congress inter- 
vened between his parting with Gen. Washington in March, 1797, and the death 
of the General, which occurred December 14th, 1799, "in my passage to and 
from which, (one session of congress,) as it happened not to be convenient to 
call on him, I never had another opportunity.'" Thus Mr. Jefferson had three 
opportunities of calling on his illustrious friend which he omitted to improve, 
and for which omission he has not assigned any reason. Mr. Tucker will 
doubtless attribute this mistake on the part of Mr. Jefferson to defect of memo- 
ry, which he may very fairly do; but this will not explain Mr. Jefferson's 
neglect of a man whose society all the world sought, and whom he had pecu- 
liar reasons to love and honour. 

In the text there are several intimations that the author felt great doubt as 
to the correctness of the copy of the Mazzei letter which Mr. Jefferson has 
given to the world. Mr. Tucker may have deemed this doubt "nearly gra- 
tuitous," and therefore thought it unworthy of his attention. But I think a 
candid consideration of the following facts will prove it to have been well 
founded. If we may trust the "Memoirs of Jefferson," before referred to, (see 
Vol. II. p. 3,) the letter as it appeared in the American newspapers, was in the 
following words. 

"To Mr. Mazzei, author of Researches, Historical and Political, upon the 
United States of America, noio resident in 'Pascany. 

"Our political situation is prodigiously changed since you left us. Instead 
of that noble love of liberty, and that republican government which carried us 
through the war, an Anglo-monarchic-aristocratic party has risen. Their 
avowed object is to impose on us the substance, as they have already given us 
the form, of the British government. Nevertheless, the principal body of our 
citizens remain faithful to republican principles. All our proprietors of lands 
are friendly to those principles, as also the men of talents. We have against 
us (republicans) the Executive power — the Judiciary power (two out of three 
branches of our government) — all the officers of government — all who are seek- 
ing office — all timid men, who prefer the calms of despotism to the tempestuous 
sea of liberty — the British merchants, and the Americans who trade on British 
capitals — the speculators — persons interested in the public funds — establish- 
ments invented with views of corruption, and to assimilate us to the British 
model in its corrupt parts. 

"I should give you a fever were I to name the apostates who have embraced 
their heresies: men who were Solomons in council and Samsons in combat, 
BUT WHOSE hair has been cut off by the whore of England. 

"They would wrest from us that liberty which we have obtained by so much 
labour and peril; but we shall preserve it. Our mass of weight and riches is 
so powerful that we have nothing to fear from any attempt against us by force. 



Jj 



113 

duplicity. "They see that nothing can support them but the 
Colossus of the President's merits with the people, and the mo- 



It is sufficient that we guard ourselves, and that we break the Lilliputian ties, 
by which they bound us, in the first slumbers which succeeded our labours. It 
suffices that we arrest the progress of that system of ingratitude and injustice 
towards France, from which they would alienate us to bring us under British 
influence." 

The reader will have clearly perceived that Mr. Jefferson was anxious to 
rid himself as much as possible of the responsibility which attached to the 
authorship of that letter; and that while he refrained from acknowledging it 
at all to the public, he anxiously limited that acknowledgement to his most inti- 
mate friend, Mr. Madison. Yet while he complains to him of alterations in 
the form of his expressions, he mentions but one instance in which the sub- 
stance was "materially falsified." "I could not (he writes) avow it as it stood, 
because the form was not mine; and in one place, the substance very mate- 
rially falsified." That one place, it Avill be remembered, was in the perfectly 
immaterial addition of the letter s to the word form, about which enough has 
been said. If, therefore, Mr. Jefferson thought it worth while to search so 
astutely for variations in the published letter from that which he wrote to his 
Italian friend, as his nice discovery of the omission of a single letter would 
indicate, is it probable that he would have overlooked two really material alter- 
ations in the letter. For in that which the journals published we find nothing 
of this new and extraordinary division of our national legislature into three 
branches, which ihe press-copy discovers to the world. The former speaks a 
language which we all recognise when it refers to our government as divided 
into three branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; but to call our ex- 
ecutive a branch of the legislature, is to confound departments which the con- 
stitution carefully separated, and whose careful separation both in the British 
and American governments has been the theme of the greatest praise by writers 
upon both. Neither does Mr. Jefferson mention to Mr. Madison the last sen- 
tence of the published letter as a spurious addition to his own: although in his 
letter to Mr. Van Buren, 28 years after, he magnifies it into "the interpola- 
tion of an entire paragraph," which he says has been the constant burthen of 
federal calumny, and that "even Judge Marshall makes history descend from 
its dignity, and the ermine from its sanctity, to exaggerate, to record, and to 
sanction this forgery." 

The reader will perceive how perfectly gratuitous this attack upon Judge 
Marshall is by turning to the last note to his Life of Washington. He will 
there find with surprise (at least I did,) that there is not one word said about 
the contents of this fetter to Mazzei, but that only some remarks, which accom- 
panied its publication in the Moniteur, are given, without a single comment 
by the Judge, in illustration of that part of the text to which the note refers, 
and which is a letter from Washington to Hamilton. 

But supposing this sentence to have been a forgery, how was any one to be 
blamed for regarding it as genuine, when notwithstanding its having been 
made so long a theme for calumny, Mr. Jefferson never informed the world of 
its spurious character. Under these circumstances, and at this stage of the 
controversy, it seems most probable that the sentence in question is as genuine 
as any other portion of the letter of which it is published as a part. For to 
whom are we to impute the alleged forgeryl It would have been too insigni- 
ficant a deed for the gigantic wickedness of those persons in France to whom 
Mr. Jefferson says he had always imputed it, and even he does not suspect his 
Italian friend of it. That "it may have been done here, with the commentary 
handed down to posterity by the Judge," (Marshall,) is a supposition only reck- 
less enough for Mr. Jefferson's mind to have entertained, or his pen to have 
scribbled. It therefore seems most probable, both from the nature of the case, 



114 

ment he retires, that his successor, if a monocrat, will be overborne 
by the republican sense of his constituents^ if a republican, he will 



as well as from Mr. Jefferson's long silence, and first assertions to Mr. Madi- 
son, that the sentence was not a forgery. 

Another proof that the press-copy is rather to be regarded in that light, is 
derived from the following sentence in the letter to Mr. Madison: "The origi- 
nal has a sentiment like this, (for I have it not before me,)" &c. Now to treat 
this as the communication of an honest man to a friend to whom he was open- 
ing his soul and applying for advice, we must suppose Mr. Jefferson meant to 
assert that he had no rough draft or accurate copy of the original letter within 
convenient reach. For, that Mr. Madison should have been gravely informed 
that he had not before him the very letter he sent to Italy the year before, would 
have been a piece of idleness that we cannot expect to find in the confidential 
correspondence of such men. Still it is difficult to conceive why the press- 
copy of it should not have been as much within reach at Monticello the year 
after the original (which was also dated at that place) was written, as it was 
28 years after, when Mr. Van Buren was favoured with an explanation and 
transcript of it. We must therefore either suppose that Mr. Jefferson had no 
copy of this letter, or that it was such a one as he did not wish Mr. Madison 
to see. Between these and other inferences which the foregoing facts will 
suggest, the reader may choose for himself; and he can easily imagine how a 
press-copy might have then been prepared, which, at this distance of time, 
might deceive a more critical inspector of Mr. Jefferson's papers than he would 
expect to find in Mr. Tucker. 

This biographer winds up his dissertation on this subject by considering the 
concluding part of the letter to Mr. Van Buren, and while asserting the truth 
of this portion of it, contradicts its statements; and in his very attack upon the 
federalists bestows unwittingly upon them high commendation. The reader 
after overcoming his astonishment that it should be gravely asserted by Mr. 
Jefferson and seconded by Mr. Tucker, (page 521,) that Gen. Washington, 
after his cabinet became entirely federal, "had no opportunity of hearing both 
sides of any question," will find delivered to the world by these two authorities 
for true history, that "the continued assiduities of that party drew him into the 
vortex of their intemperate career." By then turning over a few leaves, will 
be found on page 528, that "though he occasionally acted with either party — 
most often with the federalists — he approved or condemned the acts and opi- 
nions of either, with an impartiality which entitled him to the praise that no 
other of his cotemporaries could boast — of being a man of no party." The 
reader will be at once struck with the discordance in the chimes of Mr. Jeffer- 
son's forgiveness of Gen. Washington's intemperance, and Mr. Tucker's praise 
of his impartiality, and a little reflection will enable him to appreciate the 
commendation bestowed upon the federalists by the confession of a hostile his- 
torian that their conduct obtained the larger share of Washington's approba- 
tion, and that, too, at the very time he is enforcing an attack of their bitterest 
enemy upon them. For in a preceding part of the paragraph which the last 
citation concludes, Mr. Tucker says, "It is then truly remarked by Mr. Jef- 
ferson, that the federal party act the part of friends to themselves rather than 
of Washington, in seeking to make him the sharer of the bitter obloquy they 

!)rovoked," &c. Well, what would Mr. Tucker, and all who think like him, 
lave the federalists to do"? Would he have them assert that the great Wash- 
ington was a dupe and tool in their hands'? — that they shaped his measures and 
inspired his conduct — that they made him quell domestic insurrection and resist 
foreign violence — that, in short, that civic renown of his, which transcends 
his military fame, is the work of their minds, and should adorn their reputa- 
tions! Or would he have them tell the truth as they have done — that they 
adopted the principles, approved the measures, and supported the administra- 



115 

of course give fair play to that sense, and lead things into harmony 
between the governors and governed." "Most assiduous court is 



tion of Washington whom they were proud to acknowledge as their chief, and 
sustain as their leaderl Which is the most honourable to Washington — to be 
regarded as the director or the dupe of those whom he called into his councils 
— to be respected as the master of those measures which he held out to his 
countrymen as his own, or pitied as a puppet which was "played off by the 
cunning of Hamilton," and "taken in by Humphreys," as his pretended friend, 
Mr. Jefferson, asserts he was"? When Gen. Lee pronounced him to have been 
"first inv/ar,Jirst m peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen," he uttered 
nothing more than his own deep conviction, and that of every federalist in 
America. Such an outrage upon truth and upon the character of Washington, 
as that he was held in leading strings by his "entirely federal cabinet," and led 
along with ears stopped, and eyes blindfolded, was too wickedly audacious for 
a federal heart ever to have conceived, or a federal tongue to utter. The mem- 
bers of that party, bold as they were against the enemies of their country, were 
timid in attacks upon truth, and regarded Washington, as he deserved to be 
regarded, with a reverence almost idolatrous. And when they have recom- 
mended to their countrymen, the principles they would inculcate and the mea- 
sures they would advocate, as those of Washington, it was not to "involve him 
in the bitter obloquy they provoked," but to adduce his approbation as a potent 
argument in favour of that which they deemed essential to their country's 
good. As to claiming him as of their party, they did this no further than to 
acknowledge him as their chief, and that he was so we have the distinct evi- 
dence of Mr. Tucker himself. He says, (Vol. II. p. 49,) "The legislatures in 
the several states prepared to support or oppose the course of the administra- 
tion," (Mr. Adams's,) "according to their respective sentiments, and that of 
Virginia was looked to with peculiar interest by both parties, because that state 
was yet the largest in the Union, and the leaders of both, parties, Gen. Washington 
and Mr. Jefferson, were to be found among its citizens." This ought to be 
sufficient to confound Mr. Tucker, and to silence the maligners of the fede- 
ralists upon this topic of calumny. But the composition of their party, the 
merit to which they are entitled, and the popularity which they ought to enjoy, 
are of too much importance to the country, to sutler me to omit, in this place, 
the citation of much more valuable testimony in their behalf than the unwit- 
ting eulogy of Mr. Tucker, or the blind attacks of Mr. Jefferson. Monsieur de 
Tocqueville, who is generally regarded, and was lately mentioned by Mr. 
Rives, in the Senate of the United States, as the "most profound and sagacious 
of all the foreign commentators upon our institutions,'' says (page 92,) "If 
America ever approached (for however short a time) that lofty pinnacle of 
glory to which the proud fancy of its inhabitants is wont to point, it was at the 
solemn moment at which the power of the nation abdicated, as it were, the 
empire of the land. All ages have furnished the spectacle of a people strug- 
gling with energy to win its independence," &c. &c. "But it is a novelty in 
the history of society to see a great people turn a calm and scrutinizing eye 
upon itself, when apprized by the legislature that the wheels of government 
had stopped; to see it carefully examine the extent of the evil, and patiently 
wait for two whole years until a remedy was discovered, which it voluntarily 
adopted without having wrung a tear or a drop of blood from mankind." 

Who they were that produced this admirable action and grand result is well 
known. The same author says of them, (page 157,) "The accession of the 
federalists to power was, in my opinion, one of the most fortunate incidents 
which accompanied the formation of the great American Union: they resisted 
the inevitable propensities of their age and of the country. But whether their 
theorieswere good or bad, they had thedefectof being inapplicable, as a system, 
to the society which they professed to govern; and that which occurred under 
the auspices of Jefferson, must therefore have taken place sooner or later. But 



116 

paid to Patrick Henry. He has been offered every thing which 
they knew he would not accept." 

Now although Mr. Jefferson often attempts to prevent the recoil 
of his slanders on Gen. Washington, by pretending to separate him 
from his cabinet^ representing him, as "misled," "played off," &c. 
by Hamilton and others, in this case that ridiculous stratagem is 
eminently unavailing, as Gen. Washington, clearly described as a 
monarchist in the first sentence, was the very individual who was 
paying the "court" which is denounced as perfidious in the second. 
For on the 11th of January, 1796, Gen. Washington wrote to Gen. 
Lee, who he knew was on the most intimate terms with Mr. Henry, 
the following note:* 

"My Dear Sir, — Your letter of the 26th ult. has been received, 
but nothing from you sincej which is embarrassing in the extreme; 
for not only the nomination of Chief Justice, but an associate Judge, 
and Secretary of War, is suspended on the answer you were to 
receive from Mr. Henry; and what renders the want of it more to 
be regretted is, that the first Monday of next month (which happens 
on the first day of it) is the term appointed by law for the meeting 
of the Superior Court of the United States, in this city; at which, 
for particular reasons, the bench ought to be full. I will add no 
more at present than that I am your affectionate, 

"Geo. Washington." 

In a letter to Mr. Madison of the 22nd January, 1797, (Vol. III. 
p. 347,) Mr. Jefferson says — "I do not believe Mr. Adams wishes 
war with France; nor do I believe he will truckle to England as 
servilely as has been done.''^ February 9th, (p. 350,) to James 
Sullivan. "Still there, I believe, and here, I am sure, the great 
mass is republican, nor do any of the forms in which the public 



their government gave the new republic time to acquire a certain stability, and 
afterwards to support the rapid growth of the very doctrines which they had 
combated. A considerable number of their principles were, in point of fact, 
embodied in the political creed of their opponents; and the federal constitu- 
tion, which subsists at the present day, is a lasting monument of their patriotism 
and their wisdom." 

If there be any censure mingled with this eulogy, it is that the federalists 
did not imitate the wisdom of Solon, who framed for his countrymen, as he 
said, not the best system of laws he could devise, but the best they could bear. 
Certain it is that the federalists appear to have been more bent upon truly 
benefilting, than falsely pleasing their countrymen; and it is delightful to per- 
ceive that truth is beginning to raise her clear voice in their praise, above the 
din of party denunciation, and to inscribe their merit upon a fair and lofty 
monument, the work of their own pure hands and upright minds, Avhich may 
justly challenge comparison with the noblest labours of mankind. Their suc- 
cessors have but to imitate their virtues and follow their counsels to render its 
duration as lasting as its design was benevolent, — as its operation has been 
beneficent, — as its proportions are sublime! 

* In MS. 



117 

disposition has been pronounced in the last half dozen years, evince 
the contrary. All ot them, when traced to their true source, have 
only been evidences of the preponderant popularity of a particular 
great character. That influence once withdrawn, and our coun- 
trymen left to the operation of their unbiassed good sense, I have 
no doubt we shall see a pretty rapid return of general harmony, 
and our citizens moving in phalanx in the path of regular liberty, 
order, and a sacrosanct adherence to the Constitution." 

Here the well-earned popularity, the pure and meritorious influ- 
ence of Gen. Washington, is assigned as the cause of public disorder, 
of obstruction to liberty, and of the departure of his fellow citizens 
from the constitution of the country; this too, with the duplicated 
epithet sacrosanct prefixed, by the very man who two years before 
had countenanced the western insurrection, and had vehemently 
declared that the Constitution, against the dominion of which it 
was directed, authorized the enactment of '-an infernal law." 

In a letter to Gen. Gates, of the 30th of May, (p. 354,) Mr. Jef- 
ferson draws the following parallel between the policy of General 
Washington, and that of the contemporaneous British ministry. "I 
wish any events could induce us to cease to copy such a model, and 
to assume the dignity of being original. They had their paper sys- 
tems, stock-jobbing, speculations, public debt, monied interest, &c., 
and all this was contrived for us. They raised their cry against 
Jacobins and revolutionists; we against democratic societies and 
anti-federalists; their alarmists sounded insurrection, ours marched 
an army to look for one, but could not find it." In a letter to Col. 
Burr of the 17th June, (p. 357,) from which a passage has been 
already extracted,* he denounces "the ungrateful predilection" of 
Washington for Great Britain, although, as you will remember, in 
his letter to Mr. Van Buren he declares, that the objectionable 
measures of the general government during his period, were dic- 
tated not by the Executive, but by majorities in the two Houses of 
Congress. 

The same offensive spirit breaks out in a letter to Arthur Camp- 
bell; (Vol. III. p. 364,) and still more invidiously in one to Mr. 
Madison, (p. 373.) In the first, dated the 1st of September, 1797, 
six months subsequent to President Washington's retirement from 
office, Mr. Jefferson in reference to the federal party thus exults in 
the success of his efforts to lessen Washington's popularity; "Hi- 
therto their influence and their system have been irresistible, and 
they have raised up an executive power which is too strong for the 
legislature. But I flatter myself they have passed their zenith. 
The people, while these things were doing, were lulled into rest and 
security from a cause which no longer exists. No prepossessions 
now will shut their ears to truth. They begin to see to what port 
their leaders were steering during their slumbers," &c. In the 

* See Letter III. 
15 



IIH 



Hccornl, ol the I/jdiol Kf.biuary, I7!)H, tlie Ibllowiiif^ lat)j!;uagc ia 
hclil. "A {^rciil. ball Ih l(» be {>;iveri lieie on tlie 9Mm\, and in oUier 
great lowns »)! tli(* Union. '\'\\\h \h, at least, w.vy indelicate, and 
piobabl)' excitcH uneasy KetiHatiotis in HDiiie. I see in it liowever 
lliis uscliil (b^diicliun, lliat tlie birtli days wliicli liav(> been kept, 
liave been, n<»l tliosr; oC tin; i'resiileiit, but ol tlie (i(MM'ral;" and 
aj^ain, to (lie same, Maic.li 'Ind, (p. 377,) "Tlie late biitli-nii;lit has 
jTitainly soion tar('.simii)U<^ \\u'. (exclusive fedeialisfs. 'I'lie sincerely 
Adani'^ites (lid not ^o. Tlie VVasliin^tonians went i'eli;j,iously, and 
took the secession ol the others in hi;;h d'id;;i'(»n. The one sect 
threatens to desert the levees, the other, IIk; parties. The VVhij^s 
went in ntiiiibers, to encoura^i; the idea that llit! birth -ni;i,lils hitherto 
kepi had been lor the (General, and not the l'r(>sidetit, and of course, 
that time would brint!; an end (o them." Kiom this wc; are to un- 
derstand, that the Adamsites who kept alooi, were the soutid ^rain, 
and tin- friends who out oT respect and venciration lor Washinj^ton, 
attended the birlh-nij^ht ball, wen^ the chaj/', of the lederal party. 
For, ind<^pendently of the obvious meaning; of (be terms, anion*; 
these last, were Hamilton, Jay, Knox, ami all those, whom Mr. 
Jellerson had sti^ijtiiatised as unprincipled ]>olilicianH, as Monarch- 
ists, An};lonien, and Corruptionists; and in his letter to Mr. Madi- 
son, (already (pioted, p. 'M7,) he had declared his bcdiel that Mr. 
Adams would make a belt(;r president than (len. VVashinj;ton hail 
been — "would not truckh; to I'lii^land as servilely as had been 
done." 

It appears indeed, that In; could not behold without chagrin and 
etivy, this harmless evidence ol popular respect lor (he services of 
i\\v. citi/.en wlutse wisdom and authority had sustained our ;:;overn- 
nieiit, totteiiii;;- between the; pressure ol domestic lac^tions, and 
lorei;;!! belligerents, Irom the tender weakness of infancy, toastate 
ol i'e;;ular and inde|)eiident action. 

On tin? '2(ith November, 171)H, in writin;; (o John Taylor, Mr. 
Jeirers(ni says, (|). 'lO-t.) "It is a sinj;ular phenomenon, tiiat while 
•)ur stat(! ^governments are the very hist hi. the ivorlil, without excep- 
tion or comparison, our ;;eneral government has in (he rapid course 
ol niiK" or ten years, become nnne arbitrary, and swallowed more 
«»f the public liberty, than even that of Kn<:;land." Of these nine 
<u- ten years, thus jlevoted to the extensicm of arbitrary power, and 
to the destruction of liberty, (len. \Vashini;ton's presidency occu- 
pied einhl. In accor<lance with this e;;ref;ious slandei-, is his asper- 
sion in a letter to itobert li. l/ivinj;s(on, oHerin;^; him, by a ludicrous 
precipitation, the post of Secri'tary of the Navy, before he himself 
had been elected President, (p. '4'l;>. ) "tJome forward, then, my 
»lear sir, and ;i;ivt! ns the aid of your talents, and the weii>,ht of your 
character, towards the new establishment of republicanism; lor 
hitherto we havt- seen only its travestie." 

Throu<;hout all these bitter reviliiii;s and extrava<;ant misrej»re- 
bentalions of this illustrious patriot, and the other able statesmen 



11!) 

who liad ptcccdcil Mr. Jellerson, in the direction of tlic public 
councils, it is worthy of it'irwirk, tliat lie never makes the smallest 
allowance for the novel, dillicult, and c.omijlicated circumstances 
by which they were surround(!d; many of tin; end)arrassments pro- 
ceedinj; Ironi which, had been created or increased by his own in- 
stigations. 

President VVashin^^ton did not find a <;()vernment in rej^ular and 
healthful o[)eration — (he roule of its march opened and levelled — 
the play ol its functions easy (rom custom, and determined by ex- 
ample, lie had not to maintain public criidit, but to oii<!;inate it — 
be had not to preserve forei;:;n relations, so much as to establish 
them — he had l(;ss to cIkmIsIi than to create our commerce — and 
instead of keepin;;- the borderin;^ savages at peace, he had to repcd 
their frecjuent and murderous inroads. The first operation was the 
more didicult, from the heavy de|)reciated debt for which the nation 
was bound, both to foritii^n and domestic cre<litors. The second, 
irom the furious and uncompromisin}^ war then raffing between 
France and En<^land — placinj^ us, between the anj^er of recent hos- 
tility on one side, and the arro;fance of recent assistance on the 
other — one or both of which relations, contributed directly to en- 
ilan;^er our commercx', and to excite the VVcstiMii Indians to war. 

The peculiar difficulty which attended (ieii. Washin<ft()n's civil 
career, of having;; not f)nly, like his successors, to obey the consti- 
tution in his m(;asures, but practically to interpret it, is illustratc^d 
by two ("acts, recorded by Marshall. From this author we learn, 
that President VVashington, after consul tin;^ his cabinet, at the head 
of which was Mr. Jeirerson himself, determim-d to re(|U(rst the 
advice of the jud;:;es of the Suprenu! (^ourt as to th(! proper exposi- 
tion to be giv(!n to the treatii!s tlu^n existin;^- between France and 
the United States: and that the judges — having alter much dcdibe- 
ration, intimated that they considered themselves inhibited by the 
Constitution from counselling or deciding in their oilicial character 
on political (juestions, or on any (jiiestions not brought before them 
in the recognised forms, and regular progress of legal controversy 
—the President ac([uiesce(l in this opinion and acted without their 
advice.* Afterwards, while Mr. Jellerson was still his prinn; minis- 
ter, when the yellow fever was desolating Philadel|)hia, Washington 
consulted his cabinet U|)on the; propriety (d a[)pointing by procla- 
mation, some other place for ihc; meeting of congress — but finding 
it was considered that such a step, however desirable its object, 
would lead him beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution 
to the executive power, he promptly rececbtd from it.t 

Thus we seii that though placed in a situation unprecedented 
and perplexing, Washington's errors of opinion, never suHered to 
degenerate into faults of practice, were sources of benefit to his 
country by becoming monuments of instruction to his successors. 

* Marshall, Vol. V. pp. VSA, to 441. f Marshall, Vol. V. |.. 4G7. 



120 

For a citizen, who, like Washington, had inscribed his patriot- 
ism on the annals of his country in characters enduring as the race 
of man, to have every supposed error of his policy, or inadvertence 
of his judgment while operating in a region of government thus 
new and unexplored, attributed, not to want of experience, or 
fallibility of reason, but to want of principle or obliquity. of pur- 
pose, is surely the height of injustice. Yet from the time Mr. 
Jeiferson retired from the cabinet, until Gen. Washington laid 
down his office, and indeed, until he resigned his breath, we find 
this system of censure pursued towards him b}'^ his professed 
friend; and his measures after being distorted in their charac- 
ter, sneered at as to their motives, and misrepresented in their 
consequences; ascribed altogether to flagitious designs, of which 
he is described either as the stupid instrument, or the guilty pro- 
jector. Was not, then. Gen. Lee justified, let me again ask, in 
apprising Gen, Washington of this secret defan\ation, of this un- 
generous detraction, this ungrateful slander and hypocritical friend- 
ship — of which his character, his fame, and through these, the 
interest and reputation of his country were the victims? Was he 
not required to do it, by the political sympathy and personal 
friendship he felt for Gen. Washington.^ Moreover, was he not 
provoked to it by the unjust attacks which Mr. Jett'erson made on 
a great public measure which, sanctioned by Washington, Gen. 
Lee had himself conducted, to the satisfaction of the government, 
the advantage of the nation, and the honour of humanity.'' 

To the remaining ribaldry against Gen. Lee in the letter to Gen. 
Washington of June the 19th, 1796, it may bethought unnecessary 
to revert — seeing that it is not above the lowest Billingsgate, in 
language, is totally destitute of foundation in fact, and as far as 
it consists of assertion, possesses but the doubtful credit of its 
author, which now 

"Like a wounded snake, drags its slow length along." 

But the name of Mr. Jefferson, before the appearance of his Wri- 
tings, stood like a lofty pillar, and threw its shadow far over our 
land. Until his assertions and opinions were collected together, 
and could be examined comparatively by the public eye, there was 
no hope of resisting his statements, or of appealing from his cen- 
sure. This domineering influence however ill-founded, cannot be 
dissipated in a moment, even by the all-pervading light of truth; 
and although it be perfectly clear that his book will eventually 
overlay his reputation, the popular mind will yet for a season 
incline with reverence to his authority, and repeat the echoes of 
his slander, as the rocks that overhang the sea, are said to retain 
in their caverns the sound of the tempest after it has passed. 

I shall therefore proceed to notice these imputations; and though 
very briefly, at much more length than they deserve. 

The first is that Gen. Lee had "ginned against Gen. Washing- 



121 

ton." No fact is alleged or even alluded to, in support of this. 
In contradiction of it are these well known facts at least; that sub- 
sequently to the date of this assertion, Gen. Washington, when 
empowered to select general otlicers for the army he consented to 
command, when all the military fame he had acquired in the revo- 
lution was to be hazarded in a new contest, and as was supposed 
with the conqueror of Italy, placed Gen. Lee higher in the line of 
the army, than any of the revolutionary lieutenant-colonels, 
although he was the youngest of those whom he designated: and 
that when becoming sensible of Mr. Jefferson's pernicious schemes 
and dangerous popularity, he determined to exercise his influence 
in opposition to them, he persuaded Gen. Lee, the man whom he 
knew Mr. Jefferson hated and slandered, to become again a candi- 
date for Congress, and exerted himself in the last days of his life 
to promote his election.* To these it may be added, that when 
that illustrious life was closed, Gen. Lee was selected in confor- 
mity with a resolution of Congress, and with the concurrence of 
Mr. Jetferson himself, not only as the most eloquent but the most 
intimate of Gen. Washington's friends, to pronounce, in a funeral 
oration, his country's honour, anil his country's grief, for 'the ?nan, 
first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his fellow- 
citizens.'t 

The second imputation is, that Gen. Lee had made attempts at 
a confidential intercourse with Mr. Jefferson — which by the latter 
was declined. Admitting this to be true, it only shows the con- 
sciousness of sinister and shameful designs on the part of Mr. 
Jefferson. For as Gen. Lee was the intimate personal friend of 
Washington, Hamilton, Marshall, Madison, Patrick Henry, Rufus 
King, and of almost every eminent man in the United States; had 
been distinguished both in military and civil life; and to say the 
least in his favour, was remarked for fine address, and engaging 
conversation, there could not possibly be any honest reason for de- 
clining his advances. 

The third denounces him as a tergiversator; which is so remote 
from the truth, so repugnant to the uniform consistency with 
which he supported the policy of Washington and opposed the 
schemes of Mr. Jefferson, that it may be passed by as a falsehood 
self-evident, susceptible neither of belief nor refutation. 

The fourth and last is, that he was not a man of truth, and was 
therefore unworthy of the public stations he had held. 

In reply to the first part of this slander, I shall merely observe, 
that he maintained during life, the reputation of a man of truth, 
in spite of Mr. Jefferson's clandestine imputation to the contrary, 

* Marshall alludes to this circumstance, Vol. V. p. 7G0, but as Gen. Wash- 
ington made the same demonstration of attachment and respect for himself, 
mentions no names. 

t Marshall, Vol. V. pp. 770-71. 



122 



and left among his writings nothing to convict him after death of 
deceit or falsehood; and that he manifested in his language on all 
occasions, peculiar delicacy for the feelings and reputation of 
others, as all men of all parties who knew him, will testify. In 
the instance in which Mr. Jefferson contradicts him, it has been, I 
think you will allow me to say, demonstrated that he strictly 
adhered to the truth, while Mr. Jefferson himself abandoned most 
sadly, friendship, honour, gratitude, and veracity. And in regard 
to the second part, that Gen. Lee was unworthy of the offices he 
had held, I venture to affirm, and shall undertake to prove, that 
besides being a disinterested servant of the public, he was in pro- 
portion to his opportunities, a more efficient, a more devoted, and 
a more useful one than Mr. Jefferson. 

Their public lives may each be divided into two periods; the 
first anterior to the conclusion of the Revolution, and the second 
subsequent to it; and they may be respectively regarded under 
two aspects — one composed of the services they rendered, the 
other of the faults they committed. This mode of estimation will 
be fair, simple, and perspicuous — and will leave no room, it is 
hoped, either for the indulgence of partiality, or for what would be 
worse, the gratification of resentment. 

P. S. After I had finished this letter, the Paris newspapers of 
the 20th and 21st of Sept. were put into my hands. From them 
it appears that Gen. Sebastiani, in a debate in the Chamber of 
Deputies on the 19th, mentioned as a fact, that Gen. Washington 
died unpopular in the United States. In a continuation of the 
same debate the next day. Gen. La Fayette is reported to have 
replied, that as to Washington, Mie died in the enjoyment of all 
his popularity." This is certainly a mistake on the part of Gen. 
La Fayette, as will occur to you not only from the perusal of this 
letter, but from what is said on the same subject in the sixth of this 
series; especially from the facts taken from Marshall, that Gen. 
Washington had to defend himself against a charge of peculation, 
and that his impeachment was publicly suggested by the partisans 
of Mr. Jefferson. It may upon the whole be said, therefore, that 
while it was impossible to eradicate from the hearts of the people, 
that affection which Washington's virtues and services inspired, 
his popularity^ the desire of the people to see him at the head of 
affairs, which was naturally the fruit of their affection and confi- 
dence, had been blighted by the arts and calumnies of Mr. Jeffer- 
son. 



123 



LETTER IX. 

When the battle of Lexington was fought and the war of the 
Revolution may be said to have commenced, Mr. Jefferson was 
thirty-two years of age; and following his autobiography, which is 
ctytainly not abstemious in regard to self-praise, it appears that 
after having been elected to the House of Burgesses, being a 
member of several patriotic associations, and assisting in the adop- 
tion of various measures of incipient resistance to the government 
o.f the mother country, he was appointed a member of the Congress 
of 1775, as a substitute for Peyton Randolph, who was constrained 
by other public duties to retire from that body. Having drawn up 
the answer of the Virginia House of Burgesses to Lord North's 
conciliatory propositions, he repaired to Philadelphia, and took his 
seat in Congress in the month of June; when being appointed a 
member of the committee charged with preparing a report on the 
same propositions, the answer which he had already produced in 
Virginia, being shaped for the occasion, was approved by his col- 
leagues and accepted by Congress. As member of another com- 
mittee, he prepared a report on the causes which had determined 
the Colonies to take up arms, which being rejected by Congress, 
was substituted by one from the pen of Mr. Dickinson. His next 
performance was the declaration of independence, which, after con- 
siderable alterations suggested by Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, 
was adopted, and remains the principal monument of his revolu- 
tionary fame. 

Retiring from Congress in the Autumn of 1778, probably with a 
view of being appointed Governor of Virginia, he got into the 
Legislature of that State. He there prepared the bills for estab- 
lishing courts of justice, for cutting oft' entails, and for preventing 
the further importation of slaves — the two last certainly wise and 
important in principle. That for cutting off" entails, however, was 
of obvious necessity from the form of our new institutions, and the 
prevailing: temper of the people, and had only to be proposed by 
any member, in order to be adopted by a large majority, as it was 
in others of the States. The law against the importation of slaves 
though recommended by every consideration of humanity, justice, 
and sound policy, was a dead letter during a war in which our 
ports and harbours were all blockaded, and in which the question 
at issue was our national existence — our capacity, in short, to make 
laws. He was also the author of the Law of Descents, by which 
the Gothic and aristocratical right of primogeniture was abolished 
— a corollary from his previous law on the subject of entails. In 



124 

the early efforts to secure a perfect freedom of religious opinion in 
Virginia, by abolishing the colonial establishment, he took a lead- 
ing and zealous part. He suggested the removal of the seat of 
government from Williamsburg to Richmond, as a position less 
exposed to the enemy and more within the means of defence. He 
proposed to the Legislature of Virginia a revision of the laws of 
that State, and being appointed one of five commissioners for the 
purpose, assigns to himself the principal part of the task and of the 
credit. He was next elected Governor, an office from which he 
retired after holding it about two years. Here seems to terminate 
the list of his revolutionary labours and honours, and of the sl;^- 
tions in which these were enjoyed, and those performed. 

As he neither suggested nor maintained in debate any of the 
measures which were adopted by Congress — participated in none 
of the anxious and solemn discussions of that body; supported 
neither the motion for declaring the Colonies independent, nor the 
particular form of declaration that was adopted; and was silent in 
the deliberations on the articles of confederation, in the character 
of which his State was vitally interested, his chief title to remem- 
brance as a delegate, rests on the authorship of the declaration of 
independence. 

Whatever degree of credit may be claimed for this production, 
this credit is evidently subject, as far as Mr. Jefferson is concern- 
ed, to one abatement at least — that of its having undergone no little 
amendment, and a most abundant pruning in committee, by both 
which operations it was greatly improved. As it stands, it is no 
doubt an excellent state paper, conceived with judgment and 
expressed with solemnity. But it exhibits none of the higher pow- 
ers of composition, and though suited to the great occasion, was 
not equal to it; displaying neither extraordinary vigour of thought, 
elevation of sentiment, nor elegance of language. It may be said 
to consist of four parts — the exordium, the argument, the narra- 
tion, and the conclusion. Without questioning the propriety of 
this arrangement, it may be observed of the first part, that it is in 
point of conception natural and appropriate. The second is de- 
rived altogether from Locke's Essay on Civil Government, which 
was then the text book* of our statesmen. No great intellectual 
exertion was required to refer to or employ the principles and rea- 
soning of which this division of the paper consists. The third and 
longest part is neither more nor less than a list of grievances, with 
which every public man in the country was but too familiar. 
These, it must be confessed, are not skilfully arranged — they are 
strung together like the items of an account, and have little of that 
consecutive force and energetic dependence, which a great com- 
poser would have given them. The conclusion is the best part, 
but owes the warmth and dignity into which it rises, entirely to 
the amendments of the committee. Mr. Jefferson by his own 
showing had degraded it into a close analogy with the warranty 



I 



125 

clause of a legal conveyance^ as in the following passage — "these 
States reject and renounce all allegiance and subjection to the 
kings of Great Britain, and all others who may hereafter claim by, 
through, or under them.^^ 

The style, deficient in propriety, is chargeable with a plethora 
of words. The opening paragraph has been the subject of much 
praise, and is a favourable specimen of the composition. But it is 
liable to obvious objections. It is as follows: — "When, in the 
course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to 
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an- 
other, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate 
and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God 
entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires 
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the sepa- 
ration." The words "in the course of human events," after 
"when," are tautological; and the epithet human excessively so. 
"What is more, they imply that we became independent in the 
ordinary course of things, and not by a magnanimous and perilous 
resolution to revolt from extraordinary oppression. "The political 
bands which have connected them," is a verbose and awkward 
periphrasis of connexion; embodies, unnecessarily, a metaphorical 
vulgarism; and is not suited to the verb, "dissolve.''^ We break 
♦•bands" — we dissolve connexions. The vv'ord "separate" in the 
succeeding line is clearly redundant, its meaning being compre- 
hended in the dissolution of connexion. "Equal" is an expletive; 
for the postulate, that all sovereigns are equal had been too often 
granted to acquire strength by repetition. The phrase, "Nature's 
God," conveys a vagueness of religious sentiment, a heathenish 
puerility, out of all keeping with the awful crisis for which the 
document was prepared. "Decent respect" implies the possibility 
of indecent respect; and decent is moreover a drawback on the sub- 
stantive to which it is prefixed, besides creating a useless occasion 
for the article "a." The expression "A respect to the opinions" 
is not sanctioned by usage. When followed by to, respect means 
reference, relation. When it signifies esteem^ or reverence, it is 
succeeded hy for. In the concluding member of the sentence, the 
word "causes," is used in a moral sense, as synonymous with rea- 
sons-, in which sense it cannot be elegantly connected with the 
verb "impel." This connexion involves a metaphysical error. 
Passions impel the mind; reasons determine it — as in the follow- 
ing line of Pope: — 

"Now calmed by reason, now by rage impelled." 

Besides the disagreement between a sense of mental impulsion, 
and the state of tranquil progression, presupposed by the words 
"when in the course of human events," this language is inconsist- 
ent with the history of the occasion — with that sensitive but endur- 
ing patriotism, and that roused but deliberate resentment, out of 
IG 



126 

which the resolution to declare independence grew; and which are 
implied in the body of the declaration itself. 

These remarks are sufficient to show that in respect to the exor- 
dium, in which the great masters of style exert their utmost art to 
arrive at brief simplicity of language, a loss of words would be a 
gain of strength and beaut}^ and that the paragraph in question, 
which has been so much lauded, by being very much abridged, 
would be very much improved. As for example — "When it be- 
comes necessary for one people to dissolve their political connex- 
ion with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, 
the station to which, by the laws of nature and of God, they are 
entitled, respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they 
should declare the causes of their separation." Thus in that single 
sentence, consisting of seventy-one words, seventeen, or about 
one-fourth, are worse than useless. In the same proportion, and 
to equal advantage, the entire composition might be aljridged. 

I hazard these observations, not from a desire to detract from 
the real merit of this memorable state paper, but to convince you 
that the renown with which it has encircled the name of its author, 
is altogether owing to the success of the revolution; to the gallant- 
ry, talent, fortitude, and virtue of the very men whom he bitterly 
and incessantly reviled and slandered. Wiioever reads it must 
be prepared to admit that if our struggle for independence had 
failed — if we had experienced the fate of unhappy Poland — had 
been resubjected by the fleets and armies of England, that if 
Washington had been less wise, magnanimous, and incorruptible, 
Hamilton less sagacious, ardent, and intrepid, Lee less skilful, 
undaunted, and enterprising, this composition, which is now the 
corner stone of Mr. Jefferson's glory, would have slept amid the 
kindred lumber of some pamphleteer's shelf, and been there for- 
gotten. W'ill posterity think of inquiring for the author of the 
late Polish Manifesto — or would every heart in the United States 
beat with gratitude and love at the name of La Fayette, if his exer- 
tions in defence of our liberty had consisted in writing the decla- 
ration of independence?* 

[* For further abatement of the fame which Mr. Jefferson has derived from 
the authorship of that document, see an admirable article in the New York 
Review, upon Tucker's Life of Jefferson. The writer of it seems not to have 
been completely satisfied that Mr. Jefferson was the author of the preamble to 
the old constitution of Virginia, which (the constitution) was certainly the 
work of George Mason; whose Bill of Rights was for a long time claimed by 
the Sivion Pures of Jeffersonianism to be the production of their patron. Most 
of Mr. Mason's papers were unfortunately burnt up with his dwelling-house 
in which he left them; and anxious as I feel to contribute my mite towards 
doing justice to one who did so much for his country, I have to regret that the 
very limited researches I have been able to make on this subject, have been 
entirely unsuccessful. But the reviewer has clearly shown that the preamble 
above mentioned, the Mecklenburg Declaration, and the Virginia bill of 
Rights contain nearly every thing of importance in that document, upon which 
rests so much of Mr. Jefferson's fame. Of this latter instrument and the Meek- 



127 

As a legislator, in the contracted sphere of our State govern- 
ment, Mr. Jefferson is entitled to substantial credit. The principles 
on which he proceeded were sound, and the objects he pursued just 
and useful. They were, however, enforced by the circumstances 
of the times, and by suggestions of obvious fitness which attracted 
the attention of others as well as himself. Similar measures were 
contemporaneously adopted in other States; and if time were taken 
to unfold completely the legislative history of that period, we 
should find the figure of Mr. Jefferson, which, viewed alone, and 
through his own "optic glass" seems colossal, diminished to a size 
inferior to that of many of his contemporaries. 

His bill for establishing a perfect liberty of conscience, could 
hardly have been enunciated, much less explained and supported, 
without drawing upon Locke, who in his letters on toleration, had 
exhausted the subject. Of the merit of his revision of the Laws of 
Virginia I am not capable of forming an opinion, but I well 
remember to have heard the most accomplished lawyert of that 
State observe, that for luminous order of arrangement, precision 
and perspicuity of expression, Mr. Pendleton's part of the work 
was most to be admired. 

As a lawgiver, Mr. Jefferson was far inferior to a man, whom, 
in popular favour and public honours, he greatly outstripped. This 
man was George Mason. There is more wisdom, more condensa- 
tion of thought and energy of reason, in one single clause of the 
Virginia bill of rights, from the pen of that truly great man, than 
in all the writings of Mr. Jefferson put together. 

This clause is as follows — "That no man or set of men is enti- 
tled to exclusive or separate emoluments, or privileges from the 
community, but in consideration of public services; which not 
being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legisla- 
ture, or judge to be hereditary." Here is a volume of truth and 
wisdom, a lesson, for the study of nations, embodied in a single 
sentence, and expressed in the plainest language. If a deluge of 
despotism were to overspread the world, and destroy those institu- 
tions under which freedom is yet protected, sweeping into oblivion 
every vestige of their remembrance among men, could this single 
sentence of Mason be preserved, it would be sufficient to re-kindle 



lenburg Declaration, Mr. Tucker says, (Vol. II. p. 417,) "Every one must be 
persuaded, at least all who have been minute observers of style, that one of 
these papers has borrowed from the other; but contends, at great leiigth, that 
Mr. Jefferson was not the plagiary. Of the force of his argument, however, 
I cannot be so positive. The reader may fairly judge of it from the following 
sentence (p. 419,) if he will bear in mind what has just been said in the text of 
the strong resemblance which the conclusion of Mr. Jefferson's own document 
bears to the warranty clause of a deed. "If nothing else had prevented it," 
(Mr. Jefferson's borrowing from the Mecklenburg Declaration,) "his objection 
to the legal phraseology would have been insuperable."!] 
t John Wickham. 



128 

tlie flame of liberty, and to revive the race of freemen. Whereas, 
the Declaration of Independence contains not a sentiment, princi- 
ple or argument, not a solitary idea or combination of thought, 
that may not be found almost totidem verbis, in Locke's political 
works, or in various state papers and patriotic effusions of the Re- 
volution, and that had not been repeatedly urged in the debates on 
the great question of Independence; which its author neither pro- 
posed nor supported in Congress, and failed signally to maintain 
in the field. 

As Governor of Virginia, the world had supposed him particu- 
larly delinquent from three facts — one, that he suffered his capital, 
though remote from the sea, and inaccessible to fleets, to fall an 
unresisting prey to a detachment of nine hundred men; another, 
that a motion to impeach him for this pusillanimity was laid before 
the legislature of Virginia by a member of ability and reputation; 
and a third, that he retired from the governorship (under the weight 
of this charge) in a premature and unprecedented manner. Mr. 
Jefferson himself is quite of a different opinion; considers his flight 
from Richmond as constituting a great era in our republic, as a 
sort of political Hegira; and his escapade to Carter's Mountain, 
as an ascent into the seventh heaven of patriotic perfection, estab- 
lishing in his favour a claim to the increased infatuation, and more 
ardent idolatry of his worshippers. 

As this is the most characteristic point in his career, reveals not 
only the nature of the spell which he cast over the public tnind, 
but his own confidence in its endurance and tenacity — and as 
moreover it embraces his second and distinct attack upon Gen. 
Lee, I shall neither abuse your patience nor transgress the limits 
of my undertaking, by devoting to it some attention. 

The subject is repeatedly referred to in his "Writings," but the 
name of Gen. Lee is connected with it only in a letter to Mr. 
Monroe of the 1st of January, 1815, (Vol. IV. p. 246.) "I much 
regretted your acceptance of the war department — not that I 
know a person who I think would better conduct it. But conduct 
it ever so wisely, it will be a sacrifice of yourself. Were an angel 
from heaven to undertake that office, all our miscarriages would be 
ascribed to him.* Raw troops, no troops, insubordinate militia, 
want of arms, want of money, want of provisions, all will be 
charged to want of management in you; — I speak from experience. 
When I was Governor of Virginia — without a regular in the State, 
and scarcely a musket to put into the hands of the militia, invaded 
by two armies, Arnold's from the seaboard and Cornvvallis's from 

* Yet in this very letter to Mr. Monroe, he had himself just been guilty of 
this injustice towards Gen. Armstrong — of which from experience he spoke 
so feelingly — saying in relation to the battle of Bladensburg and the capture 
of Washington, "I never doubted that the plans of the President were wise 
and sufficient. Their failure we all impute, 1st, to the insubordinate temper 
of Armstrong," who was then Secretary of War. 



129 

the southward, when we were driven from Richmond and Char- 
lottesville, and every member of my council fled to their homes, it 
was not the total destitution of means but the mismanagement of 
them which in the querulous voice of the public caused all our mis- 
fortunes. It ended, indeed, in the capture of the whole hostile 
force, but not till means were brought us by Gen. Washington's 
army and the French fleet and army. And although the legisla- 
ture, who were personally acquainted with both the means and 
measures, acquitted me with justice and thanks, yet Gen. Lee has 
put all these imputations among the romances of his historical 
novel, for the amusement of credulous and uninquisitive readers." 

Now the fact is, that Gen. Lee, in a work of two octavo volumes, 
touches but in two chapters on the operations in Virginia during 
Mr. Jefferson's governorship, and in these, very briefly. The 
censure that his work reflects on the management of affairs in that 
State applies, as well as I can recollect, to two points only, the 
want of due preparation for the defence of the capital, in the shape 
of a regular force, and the mischievous inutility of removing the 
arms, stores, &c. to the distance of a bowshot from Richmond, in- 
stead of carrying them out of the enemy's reach, or employing 
them in opposing his advance. 

The first of these reflections regarded rather the legislature than 
the governor, and the second was as faint and indulgent a disap- 
probation as any allusion to the subject would justify. Gen. Lee 
might have expatiated on Mr. Jefferson's flight, or have recorded 
the motion for his impeachment; but because neither of these 
odious subjects were essential to his work, he avoided them. A 
generous mildness, for which, Mr. Jefferson, considering how 
differently he had treated Gen. Lee, ought really to have felt 
grateful. 

Though he never reclaimed against "Lee's Memoirs" publicly, 
I had heard he was dissatisfied, and therefore took occasion, in 
preparing a second edition, to call his attention to the passage relat- 
ing to Arnold's invasion of Virginia, offering to place in a note or 
appendix any remarks he might think proper to make — reservino- 
at the same time expressly, the right of accompanying their inser- 
tion with such observations as they might appear to authorize. He 
sent me in reply a journal of Arnold's reported progress and of 
his own proceedings, and while he acknowledged that he possessed 
no copy of Gen. Lee's work, undertook to correct his account of 
another military operation in the State — which correction turned 
out to be inapplicable, as Gen. Lee's narration corresponded pre- 
cisely with Mr. Jefferson's. Perceiving that this contribution 
tended not in the least to invalidate Gen. Lee's reflections on 
Arnold's invasion, I found myself relieved on publishing it, from 
the necessity of annexing any material remarks. 

The historical work of Gen. Lee, which Mr. Jefferson here stig- 
matises as romantic, is a personal recital of events of the revolu- 



130 

tionary war in which he was concerned, interspersed with reflec- 
tions on the conduct of the adverse commanders, and with allusions 
to such other operations as were necessary to impart consistency 
and clearness to his narration. In composing it he resorted to his 
own memory, assisted by notes that he took at the time the chief 
events he relates were passing, and by the letters and orders of 
his commanding officers. Gens. Washington, Greene, and La 
Fayette. But he did not rely altogether even on these resources. 
He called to his aid the recollection of his surviving comrades; by 
whose testimony, his statements of fact are supported. Gen. 
Pickens, Gen. Stevens, Col. Howard, Col. Carrington, Col. Davie, 
Major Pendleton, and Major Eggleston, were among his principal 
contributors. The scenes of the operations he describes, lay chiefly 
in the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, to the 
north; the Carolinas and Georgia to the south. In nearly all these 
operations he was himself an actor, while to all except those he 
slightly alludes to in Virginia, Mr. Jefferson was a total stranger. 
Yet caricaturing the public impression that various incidents in 
which Gen. Lee was engaged, his stratagems, his enterprises, his 
sieges, and marches are fraught with a romantic interest, and in- 
dulging his long-borne malice, this unwarlike politician, 

"Who never set a squadron in the field," 

denounces with oracular decision the entire work to be a mere 
"historical novel." A man who under such circumstances, could 
hazard this assertion, must have valued his own credit very little, 
or the judgment of his friend less. 

Among the deficiencies for which he alleges that he was made 
blameable, Mr. Jefferson includes a want of arms; when it is appa- 
rent from his own statement (Vol. I. pp. 201-2, and Vol. IV. pp. 
39, 40,) that he had cannon, muskets, powder, and "military 
stores" generally, in abundance. For he admits that his agents 
were at least four days and nights employed in removing, or as he 
has it, wagoning, "the military stores" from Richmond, in order 
to save them from Arnold; and that after ''nearly the whole of the 
arms" had been conveyed across James River, the enemy destroy- 
ed three hundred muskets at Richmond, besides a variety of stores, 
and at Westham recovered five brass field pieces which he had 
had sunk in the river, and threw as many tons of powder into the 
canal. This looks more like a superfluity than a "destitution of 
means." 

He represents the State as invaded by Arnold from the "sea- 
board," and Lord Cornwallis from the south at the same time; 
whereas Arnold entered Richmond on the 5th of January, and 
Cornwallis did not penetrate the southern frontier of the State 
until about the middle of May following. But the most romantic 
part of /«s '^historical novel" is the assertion that the mismanage- 
ment imputed to him "ended indeed in the capture of the whole 



131 

hostile force, but not till means were brought us by Gen. Wash- 
ington's army, and the French fleet and army." Now when this 
combination of events happened, Mr. Jefferson had, for more than 
three months, ceased to be Governor, and so far from being among 
the us who met the assistance of those martial men, Washington, 
Rochambeau, and De Grasse, was residing on his estate in Bed- 
ford, two hundred miles from the theatre of war, lying under the 
motion for his impeachment, and nibbling at a negotiation with its 
mover in order to elude a prosecution. 

As to the legislature '•'acquitting him with justice and thanks," 
it is sufficient to observe at present, that inasmuch as he was never 
tried, he could not have been acquitted^ so that the award of jus- 
tice which he modestly appropriates in his own favour, was never 
pronounced. A resolution of thanks indeed passed the General 
Assembly in the winter subsequent to the surrender of Cornwallis, 
which, besides being under circumstances that gave it a very 
equivocal character, was in terms which carefully excluded any 
reference to his military conduct. 

So much for his statement to Mr. Monroe. A more elaborate 
one is found at page 39 of his fourth volume, in the shape of an 
extract from his journal, from the 31st December, 1780, to the 
11th of January, 1781, both inclusive, a summary of certain suc- 
ceeding events, and a defence of his own proceedings. It appears 
to have been prepared in the year 1805, and to be in answer to the 
strictures of a Mr. Turner, an intelligent citizen of Virginia. Its 
main drift is to prove that from the rapidity with which Arnold's 
detachment was conveyed by the British fleet from the mouth of 
the Chesapeake to Westover, twenty-five miles from Richmond, 
(where they disembarked and indicated that Richmond and not 
Petersburg was their object) it was impracticable to oppose their 
advance, cut off their retreat, or save the stores and records. 

Upon a point of conduct like this, opinions may reasonably 
dift'er; but although there is no standard of duty, there are two 
principles by which a firm and patriotic officer will govern himself 
on such occasions. One is, not to despair; and the other, is to 
leave nothing unattempted in defence of the Commonwealth. By 
these principles Jackson was animated, when under circumstances 
of far greater gloom and peril, he attacked a force much superior 
to his own, the moment it landed below New Orleans. 

From Marshall* we learn that Arnold's party (which was com- 
posed chiefly of American deserterst) consisted of nine hundred 
men, that a few militia were detached to harass and retard them, 
and that in the mean time, exertions were made to remove the 
public stores, records, &c. to Westham. From Mr. Jefferson's 

* Vol. IV. p. 389. 

t Lee's Memoirs — the chapter in which Champe's attempt to take Arnold 
is related. It is referred to from memory. 



132 

report to Gen. Washington, (Vol. I. p. 202,) it appears there were 
at least two hundred militia, embodied at Richmond, the day the 
enemy entered and took possession of it, and that there was no 
want of arms and ammunition. But it is confessed bj himself, 
that never venturing to reconnoitre the enemy, he gave at once 
into the exaggeration which estimated them at sixteen hundred 
men. He did not even accompany the party which attempted to 
oppose them, but by preparing from the first, for flight, infected 
with fear, the community which he should have inspired with con- 
fidence. Had he put arms in the hands of the people he employed 
in "wagoning^' muskets from one place of exposure to another, 
united them with the two hundred embodied militia, mounted a 
proper proportion of the party on the wagon horses, and awakened 
the patriotism and spirit of his men, by putting himself at their 
head, he might have ettectually checked the progress of Arnold, on 
the strong and wood-covered hills, which embanking a succession 
of obstructing creeks, break abruptly on the river below Richmond. 
On this ground, three hundred men, expert in the use of fire-arms, 
as our people are, with a resolute leader, stationed behind trees, 
favoured by commanding positions, and furnished with light field 
pieces, were sufficient not only to impede, but to defeat Arnold, 
who had but thirty horse, and had no, cannon. The American 
force would have increased in number and spirit every hour; 
while the enemy, their men mostly deserters, and their leader with 
a rope around his neck, would have as rapidly declined; and there 
can be little doubt that the least serious opposition upon this, his 
first parricidal attempt, would have hurried Arnold back to his 
ships. 

The war in which we were then engaged, furnished examples 
that should not have been lost on the Governor of Virginia. At 
Bunker's Hill a thousand ill-armed militia, in an uncovered posi- 
tion, taken up by mistake; though enfiladed by batteries on land, 
and exposed to the broadsides of several frigates, twice repulsed 
the attack of three thousand veteran troops, led up to the muzzles 
of their guns, by Gens. Howe and Clinton; and gave way before 
a third attack, not till their ammunition was exhausted, and the 
ground they fought on was heaped with slain. Gen. Lee, whom 
Mr. Jefferson thought so undeserving public confidence, had, when 
a Captain, with only ten men, and in an unfortified house, repulsed 
Tarleton at the head of two hundred men, although attacked by 
surprise and at the most discouraging hour, according to Napoleon, 
of the twenty-four. This same Gen. Lee, you will remember, 
when at the head of fifteen thousand men, and seconded by Gens. 
Morgan, Mifflin, and Smith, Mr. Jeft'erson was of opinion might 
not only have been successfully opposed, but actually cut off, by a 
thousand "men at their ploughs," "in a thousand places in the Alle- 
ghany;" although like Mr. Jetterson, these insurgents were "un- 
prepared by their line of life and education," for war. 



133 

Had Mr. Jefferson failed in a resolute effort to defend his capi- 
tal, his misfortune, though lamented, would not have been blamed. 
It was patriotic spirit, not military skill, that was required of him. 
But it is impossible to conceive that he was not censurable, for 
avoiding that degree of personal danger to which an attempt to 
defend the dignity and interest of the commonwealth he had un- 
dertaken to govern, would have exposed him. So far from acting 
up to the crisis, he never faced the enemy or even observed him; 
and until he ascertained that Arnold had retreated to his ships, 
kept himself behind the current of a broad and unfordable river, 
flitting from place to place, hiding his guns, innocent things I lest 
the enemy should shoot at them; and sheltering them, against an- 
other war, it would seem, from the pitiless rains I* During all 
this time, even when Gen. Phillips had succeeded Tarleton, he 
affirms, with an appearance of truth, too, he never assumed a 
guard, was often "in four, five, or six miles" of the enemy, with 
nothing but James river to protect him. But counting the river 
and the distance for nothing, the solitary incognito which the 
Governor adopted, was a complete protection from danger, and 
shows that in order to secure that inestimable advantage, he ren- 
dered himself as useless and obscure as any private citizen who 
kept out of harm's way. 

On the morning of the 8th, when it was certain that Arnold had 
retreated to Westover, Governor Jefferson ventured across the 
river, and returned in safety to Richmond. At this time he states 
that a force of two thousand three hundred militia were collected 
under Gens. Steuben, Nelson, and George Rogers Clarke, with a 
view of attacking Arnold, or at least preventing his ravages. Yet 
he never put himself at the head of these parties, nor encouraged 
them by his presence, nor participated in their eftbrts to annoy the 
enemy. 

He retained his station as Governor of Virginia, until the ensu- 
ing; June, during; which interval, his native state, the destinies of 
which were committed to his care, infested by tv/o hostile inva- 
sions, and overrun by the horrors of conflagration and slaughter, 
had to exert its last fibre of strength in self-defence. Yet he alone. 
Commander-in-chief of the forces, stood aloof from peril, never 
ventured within cannon-shot of the foe, and looked on from a dis- 
tance, while a generous and gallant foreigner,! offered himself to 
the danger, which our Governor ingloriously shunned. 

But this, if we believe him, was not the most reprehensible part 

* Extract from his journal, (Vol. IV. p. 40,) "Finding the arms, &c. in a 
heap near the shore, and exposed to be destroyed by cannon from the north 
bank, the governor had them removed under cover of a point of land near 

by." "He returned to Britton's, to see further to the arms there, exposed 

on the ground to heavy rains which had fallen the night before." 

t La Fayette, with twelve hundred raw recruits, and a few local militia, by 
a series of bold and skilful movements, made head against Arnold, Phillips, 
and Cornwallis in succes'sion, the last at the head of seven thousand men, 
17 



134 

of his conduct. By the Constitution of Virginia, as it then stood, 
you know that the Governor was elected annually, and to secure 
a prudent rotation in office, the same individual was eligible, three 
years only out of a term of seven. The usage under this regula- 
tion was even then, (and has continued ever since,) that a man be- 
ing elected the frrst time, was re-elected the two succeeding years 
as a matter-of-course, and thus completed his constitutional term. 
Mr. Jefferson was first elected in June, 1779, (Vol. I. p. 40,) and 
says he declined a re-election, in other words, virtually resigned, 
in June, 1781; at a time when Lord Cornwallis with an army of 
seven thousand men had penetrated into the heart of the State, and 
■with his detachments, under Simcoe and Tarleton, was spreading 
destruction, if not terror, far and wide. Now, can it be supposed 
that Gen. Lee, or any other citizen of Virginia — any man, or even 
any woman, who had drawn her first breath on that soil, would 
have shrunk from the publice service, at such a crisis.'' 

But Mr. Jefferson represents it as an act of laudable diffidence, 
of patriotic self-denial, assigning as a reason for it, that he was 
unpractised in arms, and not educated for command, and that 
therefore conceiving it proper that the military and civil power 
should be lodged in the same hands, he proposed to his friends in 
the Legislature, that Gen. Nelson who commanded a division of 
militia, should be appointed Governor. 

This reasoning and this expediency did not occur to Governor 
Rutledge of South Carolina, nor to Governor Trumbull of Con- 
necticut, nor to any of the governors of the other States. The 
same Arnold, emboldened by his successful irruption into Virginia, 
invaded Connecticut, entered its chief seaport, massacred its citi- 
zens, and ravaged their property; but Governor Trumbull main- 
tained his station and watched with tutelary care over his bleeding- 
country. 

Governor Rutledge, when his State was not only overrun, but 
subjugated by the same Corwallis, instead of declining the office 
of Governor, assumed that of dictator. He was neither trained to 
war, nor practised in command, but like Mr. Jefferson had been 
bred a lawyer, and educated for civil employments. But he never 
despaired of his little commonwealth; he held fast the ensigns of 
her sovereignty, and fanned every spark of her patriotism that was 
left uncjuenched by the torrents of blood, which, in the agony of 
unsuccessful valour, she had shed. He organized every effort at 
resistance, and encouraged every attempt at deliverance, that the 
public spirit of his countrymen essayed. When driven from 
Charleston by a powerful armament and a regular siege, and in 
consequence of a series of defeats, expelled from his state, he made 
the camp nearest the foe his capital; and although he might have 

during incessant operations, for six months; and until he was joined by Gten. 
Wayne, and afterwards by Washington. 



135 

devolved his responsibility on either of those sons of war, Sumter, 
Marion, or Pickens, he proudly maintained it, and by his fortitude, 
exertions, and influence, imparted to their enterprises an efficiency 
and success, which (had those officers been embarrassed with civil 
duties) would not have attended them.* 

This conduct secured to Governor Rutledge just and lasting 
fame. Can it be affirmed, then, that for conduct diametrically 
opposed to this, in similar circumstances, and in the immediate 
face of an example so glorious, Mr. Jefterson was entitled to praise, 
or was not justly obnoxious to censure.' He admits, as you per- 
ceive in his letter to Mr. Monroe, that his conduct excited public 
discontent, conveying at the same time the impression that this 
was the etfect of delusion and prejudice. Yet if any man can for 
a moment doubt the justice of this popular feeling, let him ask 
himself whether as Governor of Virginia in time of war and inva- 
sion, he would make Mr. Jefferson his model .^' 

Be this, however, as it may, Mr. Jefferson declined a re-electioa 
from motives of disgraceful unmanliness or self-convicting despair, 
from pusillanimity past or present — an alternative to which he is 
confined by his own vindication. If a majority of the people were 
satisfied with his conduct, and a majority of the legislature willing 
to re-elect him, his retirement from the honourable station which 
he had accepted was a greater crime than any with which he was 
charged. Under such circumstances to desert his post was worse 
than flying from his capital. But by insisting that the discontent 
with his conduct was confined (Vol. IV. p. 42,) to "some who 
blamed every thing done contrary to their own opinions, "and that 
(p. 43) "he therefore himself proposed to his friends in the Legis- 
lature that Gen. Nelson, who commanded the militia of the State, 
should be appointed Governor," he does substantially maintain the 
two propositions, that a majority of the people were satisfied with 
his conduct — and that a majority of the Legislature were ivilling 
to re-elect him. It follows, therefore, that he was upon this hypo- 
thesis guilty of "present pusillanimity." 

On the other hand, if his declining a re-election was not an act 
of "present pusillanimity," it must have proceeded from a natural 
conviction that a man who had fled from the public enemy, as he 
had done, could not possibly enjoy the public confidence, and that 
the Legislature could not be expected in a season of alarming inva- 
sion, to elect a citizen as Governor to-day whom they were to try 
under an impeachment to-morrow. This, as he never pretends to 
dispute the justice of the general sentiment at the time, and lays 
claim even to a degree of favour with the Legislature which 
encouraged him to propose his own successor, amounts to a con- 
fession, that he had been guilty of "past pusillanimity." 

This view of his position is rendered plainer by his efforts to 

* Marshall, Vol. IV. pp. 136, and 44, and 45. 



m 



136 

conceal it. In a letter to Gen. Washington of the 28th of May, 
1781, (Vol. I. p. 223,) to the skirts of whose esteem he was then 
clinging for support — and who being on a distant and stormy sea 
of anxiety and contention, could not be expected to look very 
closely into the texture of his statements^ie announces his ap- 
proaching retirement in a way designed to persuade him that it 
was a voluntary and "long declared resolution," a "relief which, 
the Constitution has prepared for those oppressed with the labours 
of my office." But so far from its being in conformity with "a 
long declared resolution," he had never mentioned it either in his 
incessant correspondence with Gen. Washington, in that with the 
President of Congress, or in his letters to the Virginia delegation. 
On the contrary, you will find that in this very correspondence he 
alludes to the management of operations extending to a period far 
beyond the time proposed for his resignation. For example, on the 
10th of May, (Vol. I. p. 220,) he informs the Virginia Delegates 
in Congress that Gen. Phillips, then a prisoner under the conven- 
tion of Saratoga, had written a letter to him with this address, 
"To Thomas Jeflferson, American Governor of Virginia."' He 
adds, "very shortly after, I received as I expected, the permission 
of the Board of War, for the British Flag vessel, then in Hampton 
Roads, with clothing and refreshments, to proceed to Alexandria. 
I enclosed it and addressed it *To Wm. Phillips, Esq., command- 
ing the British forces in the commonwealth of Virginia.' Person- 
ally knowing Phillips to be the proudest man of the proudest 
nation upon earth, I well know he will not open this letter: but 
having occasion at the same to write to Capt. Gerlach, the flag 
master, I informed him at the same time that the convention troops 
in this State should perish for want of necessaries, before any 
should be carried to them through this State, till Gen. Phillips 
either swallowed this pill of retaliation or made an apology for his 
rudeness, ^nd in this, should the matter come ultimately before 
Congress, toe hope for their support.''^ Not to speak of the inhu- 
manity of making the prisoners perish for the folly of Phillips, the 
state of mind under which this letter was written, the persevering 
determination, and "ultimate" views which it reveals, exclude the 
possibility of believing that even as late as the 10th of May, Mr. 
Jefferson entertained an intention of retiring from office on the first 
of June. This conclusion is confirmed by himself in a memorandum 
of a conversation, professed to have been held with Gen. Washing- 
ton on the 29th of February, 1792, in which he says, "I told him 
that the circumstance of a perilous war, which brought every thing 
into danger, and called for all the services which every citizen 
could render, had induced me to undertake the administration of 
the government of Virginia." (Vol. IV. p. 456.) 

The deceptive spirit of his letter to Gen. Washington is further 
betrayed by his jargon about the "relief which the constitution has 
prepared for those oppressed by the labours of office." The annual 



137 

occurrence of the Governor's election instead of being prepared by 
the constitution for the purpose of relieving those who were tired 
of office, was devised expressly for the purpose of getting rid of 
those Governors of whom, as in the case of Mr. Jefferson, the public 
was tired. A Governor who was tired of office could resign it 
when he pleased — a contingency which the constitution foresaw, 
and had provided for, by declaring that in the event of the resigna- 
tion of the Governor, the oldest member of the Council, should, in 
the character of Lieut. Governor, perform the executive duties. 

But at the date of this letter to Gen. Washington the prospect 
had changed — the members of the Legislature were beginning to 
assemble and to collect into a storm the clouds of disapprobation 
which had risen up against Mr. Jefferson from every quarter of 
the horizon. By "the moody frontier" of the Legislative "brow," 
he was at a glance convinced that his impeachment, not his elec- 
tion, was to be the question of debate, and he therefore hastened 
to inform Gen. Washington, that he was about to prove his patriot- 
ism by relinquishing his office into abler hands, and after the 
exhausting labour of being two years in the prime of his life, Go- 
vernor of Virginia, in which time and capacity he did nothing but 
write and run, he was about to seek relief and rest in a private 
station. Lest this story should startle Gen. Washington, who had 
himself been unremittingly employed in a far more arduous station, 
for about six years, he says, this modest and patriotic design had 
been "long declared;" an assertion which as we have seen it is im- 
possible to believe — and which, if it could have been made with 
truth, would, in all probability, not have been repeated. 

Here the question might naturally be asked, if the pressure of 
war justified the Governor's abdication in 1781, why he accepted 
office, or was compelled by the "circumstances of a perilous war 
to undertake the government," in 1779? His qualifications were 
certainly not lessened by experience, and it does not appear that 
he was disabled by wounds — although in a letter written some few 
years ago, he solemnly assured me that in his campaign against 
Arnold he actually rode his horse until he sunk under him, and 
then borrowed an unbroken colt. A material circumstance, how- 
ever, the bearing of that unfortunate animal, at the time he foun- 
dered in a hurricane of dust and glory under the "noble horseman- 
ship" of the Commander-in-chief, is not noted in the memorandum 
with which I was furnished; and is not to be found in the printed 
log-book which has been already referred to. If conjecture were 
allowable on a subject so important and melancholy, it might, per- 
haps, be plausibly inferred, from the philosophical temper and 
retiring patriotism of the Governor throughout this perilous strug- 
gle, that at no stage of his memorable career was the horse or the 
colt in pursuit of Arnold. 

As there was no public necessity for Mr. Jefferson's waiting for 
the expiration of the official year, in order to carry into execution 



138 

his "long declared" purpose of retiring; and if, as he insists, the 
public good required that Gen. Nelson should be appointed Gover- 
nor, why did not he relinquish his office, as soon as Arnold's 
approach was announced? When this took place, the Legislature 
was in session at Richmond, and Gen. Nelson was on the spot. 
He might then have resigned his office in favour of that brave and 
devoted patriot with as much modesty and at least as little shame, 
as he felt or exhibited six months afterwards; and with the assu- 
rance that the capital of the state would not have been polluted by 
the foot of a parricide. But so fiir from that, he despatched Gen. 
Nelson to the "seaboard," and by so doing, put it out of his power 
to check the advance of Arnold, as otherwise he most certainly 
would have done. It is evident that had Mr. Jefterson executed 
the duties of his station properly, leaving to others the care of hav- 
ing the records and stores '■'wagonecV away, of hiding the arras 
from the enemy's shot, and sheltering the muskets from rain — had 
boldly taken the field with Gen. Nelson in front of the enemy, he 
would have saved Richmond from insult and pillage, ensured his 
re-election, and never have discovered that by embarrassing a 
military officer with civil duties, his power of acting in the face of 
the enemy would be invigorated. 

There is yet another reason furnished by his writings for believ- 
ing that his relinquishment of the Governorship, was the effect not 
of his being oppressed by the labours of office, but of the State 
being disgusted at his failure to perform his duties. He admits 
that a degree of public disapprobation was excited by his conduct 
as Governor, and that a member of the assembly, a man of honour 
and ability, (Mr. George Nicholas) brought specific charges against 
him before the House of Delegates. This took place in the session 
of June, irSl, and both the animadversions of the public and the 
intentions of the member must have been known to him when he 
communicated to Gen. Washington his determination to retire, 
that is, on the 28th of May, 1781. Now allowing for a moment 
that a consciousness of innocence is compatible with retirement 
under such circumstances — we find that after he became President, 
similar circumstances are assigned by him as causes compelling 
him to stand a second election. In a letter to Mazzei of the 18th 
of July, 1804, (Vol. IV. p. 21,) he says — "I should have retired at 
the end of the first four years, but that the immense load of tory 
calumnies which have been manufactured respecting me, and have 
filled the European market, have obliged me to appeal once more 
to my country for justification." The calumnies here called tory, 
a word which he uses as synonymous with federal, never went so 
far as a motion to Congress witli "specific charges" for his im- 
peachment. Yet though Mr. Jefterson had repeatedly declared his 
opinion that the President ought not to be re-eligible, we here find 
him provoked by vague newspaper attacks to stand a second elec- 
tion as President, while, when under a formal impeachment for 



139 

misconduct as Governor, he deemed it magnanimous to decline 
presenting himself for re-election, and to shrink prematurely into 
a private station. 

It is curious to observe the confusion with which he attempts to 
navigate his story between the interlocking absurdities that ob- 
struct its passage. In order to conceal the ignominy of having 
been compelled by public indignation to retire at a season of dan- 
ger and glory from the helm of affairs, he affirms that he withdrew 
voluntarily and from a sense of fatigue. And then for fear of 
being overwhelmed by the contempt which such an inglorious 
retreat would naturally excite, he declares that he retired because 
he had not been "prepared by his line of life and education for the 
command of armies." But this justification if good for any thing 
in June, 1781, was certainly better in Decembei^ 1780, when 
Arnold first entered Virginia, inasmuch as during this interval, 
Mr. Jefferson gained the only military experience that ever crossed 
♦'his line of life." In acquiring it, it must be confessed he had 
shown himself to be more of a Xenophon than an Agesilaus, and 
had taken effectual care that his retreat should not be destructive 
to his countrymen; for he would not expose a single one of them 
to the peril of attending him, although he asserts positively that he 
himself was so rash, while nothing but a river broader than the 
Rhine interposed, to "lodge," (not to sleep, for he was too good a 
soldier to sleep on his post,) frequently within "four, five or six 
miles" of the enemy's pickets! 

If, instead of excusing himself on the score of military igno- 
rance and inexperience, Mr. Jefferson had said that he withdrew 
from office in June, because he discovered that he was too young; 
his plea would have been to the full as rational and praiseworthy 
— for the obvious objection to it would have been that he was six 
months younger in December, 1780, when he first heard of Arnold's 
approach, and two years younger in 1779, when he accepted the 
office of Governor. 

But this resolution, he assures Gen. Washington, had been 
•'long declared." He also affirms that it proceeded from his want 
of military experience and education. Now if this resolution had 
been long entertained, the consciousness of this defect of expe- 
rience and education which prompted it, had long been felt, and 
was as capable of producing the effect ascribed to it, at first, as it 
was afterwards. If this be denied, then it must be admitted that 
between the time this consciousness of incapacity first arose in 
Mr. Jefferson's mind, and the day of his resignation, circumstances 
had taken place which convinced him that he was not qualified for 
the government of the state, and ought to withdraw. These cir- 
cumstances must have occurred in the intervening campaign, and 
if they were of a character so impressive as to convince him of his 
own incapacity, they could not have escaped the vigilant notice 
of the public, and must have satisfied the people of his unfitness. 



140 

So that even on this view of the matter, he could not have been elect- 
ed, had he desired it, and the public indignation which condemn- 
ed him to retirement, and which he represents as far as he admits 
its existence, (Vol. IV. p. 42,) as senseless and unfair, was justi- 
fied bj the whispers of his own conscience, and the convictions of 
his own judgment. The conclusion, therefore, from his statement 
of his case is unavoidable, either that he was inexcusable for 
retreating from the public service, that is, was not conscious of in- 
capacity; or that the charges brought against him by Mr. Nicholas 
were justified by his conduct — an alternative of equal delinquency 
and disgrace. 

But in his letter to Gen. Washington he assigns as among the 
causes of his premature descent from power, a sense of official 
fatigue, the oppressive labours of office. This is inconsistent with 
his account of the transaction in his reply to Mr. Turner. There- 
in, no allusion to fatigue or oppression is made, but his defective 
education, his unwillingness "to stand in the way of talents better 
fitted than his own" for the station, and his conviction that in time 
of war the military and civil power should be lodged in the same 
hands, are assigned as the sole and exclusive reasons for his retreat. 
But waiving the irreconcileable properties of these two explana- 
tions, it may be observed that as to the sense of fatigue and expe- 
rience of oppression, these could not have overcome him until about 
the time he retired. Neither the fatigue nor its effects were of a 
nature to be foreseen and calculated. Yet he affirms that the reso- 
lution he executed in June was the same he had declared his inten- 
tion of executing long before — that is, long before one of the causes 
to which he ascribes it had come into existence. 

As to his inferiority to Gen. Nelson that was either an equal 
and constant quantity during the whole period of his campaign, or 
it was not. If it was an equal and constant quantity, it was as 
much a reason in December as in June. If it was not, either Gen. 
Nelson had risen higher above him by some shining exploit, or he 
had sunk lower beneath Gen. Nelson in consequence of some posi- 
tive evidence of demerit. Gen. Nelson being sent off' by him to 
the coast, lost the opportunity of saving Richmond, and between 
that occasion and his election as Governor, performed no signal 
service. He therefore did not rise higher by any shining exploit, 
and of course, if this inferiority was a motive for Mr. Jefferson's 
retirement, it must have been attended by some positive evidence 
of his own demerit. 

As to the last ingredient in this clumsy compound of excuses, 
the evident propriety of uniting civil and military power in the 
same hands whenever a State is invaded, besides its general falla- 
cy, and its inconsistency with Mr. Jefferson's political doctrines, 
its absurdity with regard to his particular case is easily demon- 
strated. In the first place, by the constitution of Virginia, the 
Governor of the Commonwealth was, ex-ojffido, commander-in- 



141 

chief ot" the military forces of the State. So that there was the 
same desirable "union of the civil and military powers" in Gover- 
nor Jefferson that there was to be in his successor Governor Nel- 
son. His retirement could not produce the least alteration in the 
character of his office, or in the legal attributes of the Executive. 
In the next place, the folly of supposing that by having to attend 
to the civil branch of Executive duties the Governor is better able 
to execute the military branch, is too obvious to be insisted on. 
But it is particularly striking when we consider the organization of 
the Executive in Virginia. By the Constitution as it then stood, 
the Governor could not adopt any official measure without the 
advice of a board of Counsellors to whom he had the right of sub- 
mitting propositions. But he could not even vote in their delibe- 
rations unless in the rare case of an equal division, when he was 
empowered to give a casting vote. With this machinery it is evi- 
dent, that if the Governor in time of war chose to take command 
of the army and meet the enemy in the field, he mustjoro hac vice, 
have separated himself from his civil duties, and have given them 
up to the Lieutenant Governor and Council, recommending such 
measures from the camp as he thought advisable, in the same man- 
ner that a commanding general would have done. This was the 
case when Gen. Lee marched, as Governor of Virginia, against the 
Western Insurgents. The civil duties of his office were, during 
the whole time of his absence, performed by Lieutenant Governor 
Wood. There can be no doubt that the civil duties unless Pibdi- 
cated, would have been a drawback on the military energies of 
Governor Nelson or any other Governor; and in fact could not be 
performed by him while he was acting as a General in the field. 

But if the Chief Magistrate of Virginia, in 1781, when that State 
was invaded, and himself chased from his capital, was in duty 
bound to resign his office in favour of a militia General, who, like 
Nelson, was animated by spirit and patriotism, Mr. Madison, in 
1814, ought to have resigned his office of President in favour of 
Gen. Jackson. For President Madison was chased from his capi- 
tal, and like Governor Jefterson was unprepared "by his line of 
life and education for the command of armies." Governor Tomp- 
kins should also have resigned in favour of Gen. Brown or Gen. 
Porter, who were both distinguished military officers of his own 
State. And in all future wars, as soon as an Invasion takes place, 
both the Chief Magistrate of the State in which it happens, and the 
Chief Magistrate of the Union at the time, if they have not been 
"prepared by their line of life and education for the command of 
armies," must feel oppressed by the labours of office even after 
having served but two years, and resign their authority "into abler 
hands." 

Preposterous and deceptive as the whole of this vindication of 
Mr. Jefterson is, no part of it is more glaringly so than the indis- 
pensable value he sets on a military education. Gen. Warren was 
18 



142 

educated for the practice of medicine, and was actually a phy- 
sician, though he had just received the commission of General, 
when he fell gloriously in the first of his fields. Gen. Greene was 
brought up a Quaker, and was educated a blacksmith, and was 
both Quaker and blacksmith when he marched at the head of a 
brigade to join the army, in the lines before Boston. Gen. Jackson 
was educated originally for the church, subsequently for the bar, 
and was a Judge before he was a General. The lives of these glo- 
rious men were as valuable to them and to their friends and fami- 
lies, as Mr. Jefferson's could fairly be; but how nobly did they 
offer them in their country's defence. 

The regular army of the United States consists but of 6000 men, 
officers included^ yet, according to Mr. Jefferson's justification of 
himself, if a war and invasion were now to happen, with a popula- 
tion of thirteen millions, and a confederacy of twenty-four sove- 
reign States, all the Governors and the President, should in sound 
policy, be taken from this inconsiderable corps. 

But even in his inglorious seclusion, on the woody top of Mon- 
ticello, Mr. Jefferson was not safe from pursuit and exposure — 

-Necquicquam thalamo graves 



Hastas, et calami spicula Gnossii 
Vitabis, strepitumque, et celerem sequi 
Ajacem:" 

He had hardly nestled himself at home, when Cornwallis, eager- 
ly endeavouring to bring La Fayette to action, reached Louisa 
Court-Housej and learning there that the Governor and the Legis- 
lature had retreated to Charlottesville, despatched Tarleton with 
a party of his swift dragoons to carry them off. They fortunately 
got timely notice of his approach, and though unprepared and un- 
educated for fighting, made their escape, in the most skilful man- 
ner; the Legislature flying beyond the Blue Ridge, while Mr. Jef- 
ferson, from his own account, doubled round Carter's mountain.* 

About the time of this disperson of our tribe of statesmen, it is 
probable Mr. Nicholas had laid before the House of Delegates the 
charges on which he proposed the impeachment. These charges, 
Mr. Jefferson tells us, were afterwards, through the mediation of a 
mutual friend, communicated to him, by their author, to whom he 
returned the heads of the answers he intended to make to them — 
that eventually Mr. Nicholas not only relinquished further pro- 
ceedings against him, but took a public occasion to withdraw the 

* Mr. Jefferson sent off his family, to secure them from danger, and was 
himself still at Monticello, making arrangements for his own departure, when 
lieutenant Hudson arrived there at half speed, and informed him, the enemy 
were then ascending the hill of Monticello. He departed immediately, and 
knowing that he would be pursued if he took the high-ioad, he plunged into 
the woods of the adjoining mountain; where being at once safe, he proceeded 
to overtake his family. This is the famous adventure of Carter's mountain." 
(Vol. IV. p. 42.) 



143 

imputations contained in his charges, and that the General Assem- 
bly "pronounced an honourable sentence of entire approbation of 
his conduct, and so much the more honourable, as themselves had 
been witnesses to it." There is just as much truth in this story 
as is sufficient to cover a multitude of fictions, and being put forth 
in self-defence, would be liable to deduction on the score of self- 
interest, even if it were better made up. One material fact at 
least is misrepresented, and the circumstances of most importance 
to truth, are carefully omitted. The members of the General 
Assembly were not witnesses of his conduct in the Arnold cam- 
paign. For he himself tells us, (Vol. IV. p. 39.) that Arnold dis- 
embarked at Westover, at 2, P. M. on the 4th of January, entered 
Richmond at 1, P. M. on the 5th, and about the same hour on the 
7th, got back to Westover. He also states, that the Legislature 
rose on the 2nd, and that the members bore his orders to the militia 
of their respective counties; nor does he intimate that any of these 
gentlemen were spectators of his rapid manoeuvres on the right, or 
safe side of James river. Besides this distortion of a matter of 
fact, he makes no allusion to the events which took place between 
his flight in June, and his "acquittaV in January. 

The cause of the transaction was evidently this; the charges for 
his impeachment were laid before the assembly at their June ses- 
sion. They related to circumstances in Mr. Jefferson's official 
conduct between the time of Arnold's disembarkation at Westover, 
the 4th of January, 1781, and the election of Governor Nelson on 
the 12th of June, in the same year. Before they could be acted 
on, Tarleton, in hot pursuit was heard. The General Assembly 
itself, the impeacher and the impeached, were involved in one un- 
distinguished flight; which had the natural effect of producing a 
community of interest if not a fellowship of feeling between the 
prosecutor, the delinquent, and the judges. Soon after this. Go- 
vernor Nelson took the field in person, at the head of the militia, 
and co-operated gallantly with the combined army against Corn- 
wallis. The great and fortunate events, the siege and surrender of 
York followed, and in the winter afterwards, when the ease of 
security, the joy of triumph, and the prospect of peace, had suc- 
ceeded to the sense of danger and the din of war, Mr. Nicholas — 
who felt the influence of these events, was satisfied at seeing the 
reins of government transferred from trembling to firm hands, and 
had been mollified not only by the confession of guilt and the 
appeal to lenity, implied in Mr. Jefferson's prompt retreat before 
his accusation, but by the blandishments of a mutual friend — con- 
sented to withdraw his charges. 

The General Assembly, in the same temper of amnesty, and in- 
dulgent from their association in the Charlottesville scamper, see- 
ing that Mr. Jefferson stood not only unconvicted, but unaccused, 
patched up his disgrace, as well as that of the State, by passing a 
resolution, bearing testimony to his patriotism, zeal, and fidelity. 



144 

generally, as well as I remember the report of it, in Gerardin's 
History, but avoiding any allusion to the charges, or to his military 
exploits as Commander-in-Chief, upon which particularly they 
were intended to bear. And this is what he calls "acquitting him 
by an honourable sentence of entire approbation." 

Is it possible to believe that a man, who, in the high station of 
Commander-in-Chief of the forces of a State, engasjed in a war for 
liberty and life, was conscious of having performed his duty, and 
of possessing a claim to "honourable approbation," would have 
accepted such an acquittal, or to secure it would have condescend- 
ed to carry on a sort of underplot negotiation with a co-ordinate 
officer, on whose public responsibility had been exhibited against 
him, charges of shameful misconduct, with a proposition of im- 
peachment? 

As Governor of Virginia, Mr. Jefferson was not only the first 
civil magistrate, but the highest military officer of the State. Do 
the annals of our own country or those of Europe furnish examples 
to justify him, either as magistrate or General, in thus accepting 
mercy and oblivion instead of insisting on investigation and justice.^* 
In the war of the Revolution, Gen. Schuyler (whom Mr. Jefferson 
includes (Vol. IV. p. 470,) in his charge of monarchism) finding 
that Congress was dissatisfied with his services, as Commnnder-in- 
Chief of the Northern department, and had evinced a persuasion 
that they might be placed in "abler hands" — though sensible of 
this injustice, forbore to sanction it by a premature resignation, 
but in the winter of 1777, waited on Congress, and demanded in 
person an inquiry into his conduct. "At his request, a committee, 
consisting of a member from each State, was appointed to inquire 
into his conduct, from the time he had held a command in the 
army."* Of this inquiry, the effect was, that Congress "deemed 
it essential to the public interests, to prevail on him to retain his 
commission."t Though superseded afterwards in the most mortify- 
ing manner, by the appointment of Gen. Gates, this generous 
patriot withdrew neither from official rank nor personal danger, 
while unjustly suspended from command; he was present at the 
battle and surrender of Saratoga, and witnessing without envy the 
victory of his successor, by his generosity to the vanquished, made 
the virtues of humanity outshine the triumph of arms.t 

Judge Chase, when "specific charges" were preferred against 
him by the creatures of Mr. Jefferson, did not enter into a nego- 
tiation with Mr. Randolph or Mr. Early for their withdrawal. He 
did not transmit "the heads of his justification" to either of his accu- 
sers "through a mutual friend," but waited their attack before the 

* Marshall, Vol. III. p. 230. f Marshall, Vol. III. p. 231. 

t For an interesting account of Gen. Schuyler's hospitality and attention to 
Gen. Burgoyne, who had wantonly burnt his house, and devastated his farms, 
see the Memoirs of the Baroness Reidsel, and Thatcher's Journal, (p. 134.) 



145 

Senate of the United States, and completely defeated their prose- 
cution. Warren Hastings — who, as civil and military Governor 
of the English East India possessions, was impeached before the 
House of Lords — is not related to have tampered with the zeal of 
Mr. Burke by a confidential exhibition of his "heads of justifica- 
tion," nor did Lord Melville employ the ofiices of "a mutual 
friend" in order to avert the prosecution of Mr. Whitbread. 

Mr. Jefferson, who had conferred upon his State the peculiar 
distinction of having a Governor who first fled from his capital at 
the approach of the enemy, and next retired from his station at the 
threat of an impeachment, furnished also the singular example of 
a person thus situated being kind enough to spare his fellow-citi- 
zens the expense of a public trial, by a clandestine correspondence 
with his prosecutor- 
Can any one conceive that Gen. Washington, Gen. Jackson, 
Gen. Hamilton, or Gen. Lee, would have engaged in such grovel- 
ling diplomacy? If any one of them had been placed in the sta- 
tion of Mr. Jefferson, and had been guilty of half his pusillanimity, 
there is little doubt he would have been hung, and as little that his 
punishment would have been just. Yet Mr. Jefferson was so con- 
fident, from long success, of being able to impose on the credulity 
of his countrymen, that he determined to turn his escape from 
punishment into a title to glory; in the spirit of ancient Pistol, 

From my weary limbs 



Honour is cudgelled;' 

" Patches will I get unto these scars, 

And swear I got them in the Gallic wars." 

With respect to the assertion that "Mr. George Nicholas took a 
conspicuous occasion afterwards, of his own free will and when 
the matter was entirely at rest, to retract publicly the erroneous 
opinions he had been led into on that occasion, and to make just 
reparation by a candid acknowledgment of them" — it is to be 
remarked, that as Mr. Jefferson neither mentions the time nor the 
terms of this acknowledgment, nor the nature of the circumstances 
attending it — he conceals entirely the sole fact of importance in 
this question; that is, its value. If it was made immediately after 
what he calls his "acquittal" by the General Assembly, it was the 
offspring of the same fellowship and forgiveness which had dictated 
that ambiguous "sentence of entire approbation." If it was made 
long after that act of grace was passed in Mr. Jefferson's favour, it 
was doubtless connected with some manoeuvre of the party of 
which he had become the acknowledged chief, and Mr. Nicholas a 
leading member. 

On this last hypothesis which is rendered probable by the words, 
"afterwards, when the matter was entirely at rest," it must have 
been procured or intended to fortify the very acquittal in the 
redeeming efficacy of which Mr. Jefferson exults. But admitting 
the fact of this acknowledgment, and allowing that it was made at 



146 

the most propitious season imaginable for Mr. Jefferson's credit, 
it cannot alter or destroy the great facts of his undefended capital, 
his hare-like retreat before Arnold, his distance from danger, his 
bashful demeanour towards his country's foes, and his viitual 
resignation under charges of impeachment. Though faith may 
remove mountains, neither "candour" nor "free will" can abolish 
facts like these. 

To close this, the most characteristic scene in the drama of Mr. 
Jefferson's life: — There was a Mr. Gerardin, a French emigrant, 
engaged in Virginia as instructor of youth. He was, as 1 have 
heard, a man of amiable disposition and cultivated mind, studious 
and retired, and of remarkable simplicity of character. At one 
time he took up his residence in the neighbourhood of Monticello, 
and undertook to complete a very imperfect history of Virginia. 
As his task embraced the period of Mr. Jefferson's government, 
the latter kindly supplied him with a full set of materials, the chief 
of which were of course the journal and justification that have been 
just exposed. The effect of this liberality answered Mr. Jefferson's 
expectations. Mr. Gerardin, transformed from a wandering peda- 
gogue into a modern Polybius, totally unacquainted with the body of 
our traditions, and relying devoutly on the interested statements of 
Mr. Jefferson himself, whom he looked up to as a great statesman, 
a great philosopher, a member of the French Academy, the friend 
of Volney and other savuns, and the patron of all French theories 
and theorists, received his memoranda as Sybilline leaves, and all 
his hints as oracular responses. Of course he performed the part 
of a polygraph w press-copy^ represented Mr. Jefferson as a pillar 
of state, as bearing on "Atlantean shoulders" the entire common- 
wealth during his governorship; and as overloaded only by the 
weight of praise contained in the equivocal resolution of the Gene- 
ral Assembly. 

The book, though feeble and of limited circulation, was received 
for gospel in Virginia, as the men who could contradict and dis- 
prove its statements, had long ceased to contend against the sway 
of Mr. Jefferson's name, and it stands now among the histories of 
the time, ready to forestall the opinions of posterity.* 

In casting up the account then of the first period of Mr. Jeffer- 
son's public life, and striking a balance between the credit to which 
he is entitled, and the blame that he deserves, it appears from his 
own statement that unless we make his authorship of the uncor- 

* It is thus recommended to the world by Mr. Jefferson, (Vol. I. p. 41.) 
"Being now, as it were, identified with the commonwealth itself" (by his 
election as governor) "to write my own history during the two years of my 
administration, would be to write the public history of that portion of the revo- 
lution within this State. This has been done by others, and particularly by 
Mr. Gerardin, who wrote his continuation of Burke's history of Virginia, 
while at Milton, in this neighbourhood, had free access to all my papers while 
composing it, and has given as faithful an account as I could myself." 



\ 



147 

rected draft of the declaration of independence, (which had no 
effect either on the act of independence itself or the success of the 
Revolution) with his legislative labours in Virginia, a complete 
offset against the calamity and disgrace of his governorship; it 
appears, I say, that unless we can come to this absurd conclusion, 
a delinquency on the score of public service stands fairly made out 
against him. ' And it may therefore be confidently affirmed that 
even his most partial admirers will be satisfied to make his deserts 
and demerits countervail each other, and will gladly agree to pro- 
nounce him, when the surrender of York took place, neither ame- 
nable to censure, nor entitled to applause.* 



LETTER X. 

General Lee, soon after the battle of Lexington, entered the 
army as Captain of Cavalry, at the age of nineteen. His father 
was preparing him by a course of education for the profession of 
the law, and he was just about embarking for England to pursue 
the study of it under the patronage of his relative, since known as 
Bishop Porteous, when the commencement of hostilities changed 
his destiny. Besides being present at other important actions, in 
the northern department, he was at the battles of Brandywine, 
Germantown, Monmouth, and Springfield; and soon became a 
favourite of Gen. Washington. In the difficult and critical opera- 
tions in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, from 1777 to 
1780 inclusive, he was always placed near the enemy, entrusted 
with the command of the outposts, with the superintendence of 
spies, and with that kind of service, which required in an eminent 
degree, the possession of coolness, address, and enterprise. During 
the occupation of Philadelphia by the royal forces, his activity and 
success in straitening their communications, in cutting off' their 
light parties and intercepting their supplies.t drew on him the par- 

[* Mr. Tucker admits (Vol. I. p. 149) "That the depredations of the enemy" 
(by -which it was estimated that Virginia lost property, during the six months 
which preceded the surrender of Cornwallis, to tne amount of three millions 
sterling,) "produced the ordinary effect of complaint against those who had 
charge of the public defence, and especially against the governor." And 
at page 150 he candidly enumerates the charges brought against that function- 
ary, and prudently declines to make any other defence against them than that 
furnished by Mr. Jefferson himself, and referred to in the text.] 

t Marshall, Vol. III. pp. 203, 325, and 27. 



148 

ticular attention of the enemy. And beinjj attacked in conse- 
quence, his defence of the Spread Eagle Tavern, with only ten 
,men, against T.arleton at the head of two hundred, which has been 
already alluded to, excited no little admiration.* When the dis- 
tress of the army for provisions reduced Gen. Washington to the 
necessity of foraging for supplies, as if he had occupied the country 
of an enemy, a measure which, as may be supposed, excited the 
most injurious discontent among the inhabitants, Lee, being em- 
ployed on it, had the address to execute this painful but necessary 
duty, without exciting the smallest disaifection.t He co-operated 
as far as cavalry could act, in Gen. Wayne's attack on Stony 
Point, and procured the intelligence on which it was projected.^ 
Indeed, from a part of his correspondence with Gen. Washington 
which has been preserved, it seems not improbable that Major Lee 
suggested that brilliant enterprise. In a letter to the Commander- 
in-Chief, of the 21st of June, 1778, he observes, — 

Sir, — Since my last, no movement has taken place among the 
enemy encamped on this side the river. Two very intelligent 
deserters this morning from Stony Point, mention that yesterday 
a body of troops (number unknown) embarked from the east side 
of the river between the hours of twelve and two. They confirm 
the information contained in my last, concerning the 63d and 64th 

* Marshall, Vol. III. p. 377. "As Captain Lee was extremely active, and 
always in the neighbourhood of the enemy, a plan was formed late in Janu- 
ary, to surprise and capture both him and his troop in their quarters. Avery 
extensive circuit was made by a large body of cavalry, and four of his patrols 
were seized without communicating the alarm. About break of day, the 
enemy appeared, and the few men of the troop who were in the house with 
their captain were immediately posted at the doors and windows. Though 
his party was so small as not to furnish one to each window, they behaved so 
gallantly as to drive off" the assailants without losing a horse or more than one 
person. Their quarter-master-sergeant, who was out of the house when the 
attack commenced, after being almost cut to pieces, was taken prisoner. The 
whole number in the house did not exceed ten. That of the enemy was said 
to amount to two hundred. They lost a sergeant and three men, with several 
horses killed; and an officer and three men wounded. On the part of Captain 
Lee, except his patrols and quarter-master-sergeant who were captured out of 
the house, only Lieutenant Lindsay and one private were wounded. The 
event of this skirmish gave great pleasure to the Commander-in-Chief. 
Throughout the late campaign, Lee had been eminently useful to him, and 
had given proofs of talents as a partisan, from which he had formed sanguine 
expectations for the future. He mentioned this affair in his orders with strong 
marks of approbation, and in a private letter to the Captain, testified the satis- 
faction he felt at the honourable escape that officer had made from a stratagem 
which had so seriously threatened him. For his merit through the preceding 
campaign. Congress promoted him to the rank of Major, and gave him an in- 
dependent partisan corps to consist of two troops of horse, and by a subsequent 
resolution, another troop was added to this corps.'' 

I Marshall, Vol. III. p. 372. "Captain Lee found large droves in the marsh 
meadows on the Delaware preparing for Philadelphia, which he had the ad- 
dress to procure, without giving to the body of the people any additional irri- 
tation." 

t Marshall, Vol. IV. p. 73. 



149 

regiments being about to move from Stony Point. They also say, 
that two days since, the sick and the aged soldiers, the women 
with children, and the baggage belonging to botli> officers and 
soldiers were put on board for New York. The following is not a 
very accurate state of their naval force at King's-Ferry: — 

One 50 Gun Ship — the Rainbow." 

Armed Sloops and Schooners. 

Floating Batteries. 

Gunboats. )>Numbers not ascertained. 

Bomb Ketches. 

Row Gal lies. 

Transports and Victuallers. 

Their chief work on Stony Point is a triangular fort, on" the sum- 
mit of the eminence, exceedingly strong, and doubly abattied. On 
every spot in their camp which admits of it, they have erected 
batteries. They talk also of opening a canal and forming draw- 
bridges. They have in their several works, 7 twenty-fours, 2 me- 
dium twelves, 2 long twelves, and 2 threes, all brass. They also 
have one howitzer and two mortars, and 6 iron sixes not mounted. 
Gen. Clinton is not yet returned from New York — Gen. Vaughan 
commands in chief — Col. Johnston of the ITth, commands at Stony 
Point. It is reported in their camp that Lord Cornwallis has 
arrived at the Hook with a reinforcement, under convoy of Admi- 
ral Arbuthnot. They do not credit the news from the Southward. 
I begin to' apprehend that Gen. Clinton has designs upon the East 
river. He certainly means to draw ott* all the troops but a suffi- 
cient garrison to possess the ferry. This he keeps to distress us 
in the conveyance of support to our troops, should your excellency 
follow him to the eastward as expected. Your excellency will 
pardon me for the intrusion of my opinion. It proceeds only from 
a desire to exhibit evevy probable object that may engage the ene- 
my's attention. Many deserters get in from your excellency's 
army. The manner of sending scouts by detail from divisions, 
affords them good opportunity. A detachment seldom comes down 
without losing several of its men before they return. There can 
be no object in the reach of these parties adequate to their certain 
loss. Good intelligence cannot be obtained by flying parties. 
The enemy continue so close within their lines that there can be 
no hopes of meeting with marauders, and protecting the people 
from their depredations. Picquets of armies stationary and under 
cover of works cannot be easily carried. Officers in command 
anxious to perform some service, are apt to engage in improbable 
attempts. Accidents happen and soldiers are lost without venture 
of service. I lay these observations before your excellency because 
they originate from what 1 see and know, 

I am, &c. &c. 

H. Lee, Jr. 
19 



^ 



150 



In the course of this severe campaign when desertions from the 
American army became so frequent as to threaten its dissolution. 
Major Lee was authorized by Gen. Washington to inflict summary 
punishment on such deserters as he should take Jlagrante delicto. 
Being in command of the outposts and always close to the enemy, 
these offenders often fell into his hands. He commenced accord- 
ingly by hanging one of a party, and to strike a wholesome terror 
into the main army sent the lopped and bleeding head to Gen. 
Washington's camp. This last proceeding was not altogether 
approved by the Commander-in-Chief, though, contrary to his 
apprehensions, it is known to have produced a most salutary effect. 
In relation to it he wrote to Major Lee the following note — ^ 

"Bead Quarters, New Windsor, 10th July, 1779. 
♦'Sir, — I have this moment received your letter of the 9th. I 
wish mine of the same date had got to hand before the transaction 
you mention had taken place. I fear it will have a bad effect both 
in the army and in the country. I would by no means have you 
to carry into execution your plan of diversifying the punishment, 
or in any way to exceed the spirit of my instructions yesterday. 
And even the measure I have authorized ought to be practised with 
great caution. I am. Sir, &c. &c. 

"Geo. Washington." 

P. S. You will send and have the body buried lest it fall into 
the enemy's hands. 
Major H. Lee, 
L. D. 

The orders he received and the reports he transmitted during 
the campaigns of 1779 and 80, were daily, and show that Gen. 
Washington relied on hijii peculiarly for intelligence respecting 
the enemy's force and movements. It appears, in short, that at 
this early period he had so completely engaged the confidence of 
that great Commander, that in an official letter of the 7th of Octo- 
ber, 1779, he was directed in future to mark his communications 
with the word private, so that they should not be examined even 
by the officers of the General's military family. 

When compassion for the impending fate of Major Andre in- 
duced Gen. Washington in the hope of averting it, to make extra- 
ordinary exertions to capture Arnold, he consulted Lee — who 
planned the scheme, and selected the agent for that purpose, which 
are both so graphically described in his Memoirs.* He projected 
and executed the surprise of Powles Hook, a service for which the 
thanks of Congress with an emblematical medal of gold were voted 

* See the letters of Gen. Washington on this subject published in Lee's Me- 
moirs. 



151 

him; a distinction which no other officer below the rank of Gen. 
received during the war. 

These services of Gen. Lee, which with various others are not 
mentioned in his memoirs, are here epitomized or alluded to, for 
the purpose of balancing the careful and ostentatious catalogue 
which Mr. Jeft'erson draws up of his own revolutionary perform- 
ances. They gained for him a reputation for talent and patriotism, 
which induced Congress in November, 1780, to promote him to a 
Lieutenant Colonelcy of dragoons, and to augment his corps by 
adding to it three companies of infantry, the officers and men com- 
posing which, he was authorized by Gen. Washington to select 
from the whole army. 

With this chosen corps, he was soon detached to join the army 
of Gen. Greene in the south, where great exertions were required 
to recover the ground lost by Gates's defeat at Camden. On this 
occasion, his patriotism exalted by the misfortunes of his country, 
he expended in the purchase of horses for his dragroons, and in 
equipping his corps, a considerable part of the small fortune given 
him by his father, a contribution for which, though it proved of 
essential advantage to his country, he never received, nor even 
asked remuneration. 

The same public disaster seemed to affect Governor Jefferson's 
patriotism in a very different manner, for on the 15th of Septem- 
ber, 1780, (Vol. L p. 181,) we find him addressing the following 
careful epistle to Gen. Stevens, at a time when the attention of 
that gallant officer was doubtless altogether engrossed by his public 
cares. "Among the wagons impressed for the use of your militia 
were two of mine. One of these I know is safe, having been on 
its way from hence to Hillsborough at the time of the late engage- 
ment, the other, I have reason to believe, was on the field. A 
wagon master, who says he was near it, informs me, the brigade 
quarter-master cut out one of my best horses and made his escape 
on him, and that he saw my wagoner loosening his own horse to 
come off, but the enemy's horse were then coming up, and he 
knows nothing further. He was a negro man, named Phil I, lame 
in one arm and leg. If you will do me the favour to inquire what 
is become of him, what horses are saved, and to send them to me I 
shall be much obliged to you. The horses were not public pro- 
perty, as they were only impressed and not sold. Perhaps your 
certificate of what is lost may be necessary for me. The wagon 
master told me that the public money was in my wagon, a circum- 
stance, which may, perhaps, aid your inquiries." So that the 
Governor, in this season of general calamity, did not forget num- 
ber one, and so far from being actuated by a feeling so unphilo- 
sophical as humanity for "lame Phill," was of opinion that a cer- 
tijicate of his loss, would be a good substitute for the Nigger. As 
to the loss the country sustained of public money which fell into 



152 

the hands of the enemy, he only mentions it as "a circumstance" 
which might lead to the recovery of his own property. 

About the time Governor Jefferson was completing his memora- 
ble warfare against Arnold, Lieutenant Col. Lee joined the army 
of Gen. Greene. Under the orders of that able Commander his 
exertions are well known to have been indefatigable, and his ser- 
vices various and important. He assisted conspicuously in the bat- 
tles of Guilford and Eutaw, at the sieges of Ninety-six, Augusta, 
Fort Watson and Fort Motte. He reduced Fort Granby, surprised 
Georgetown, dispersed and cut to pieces the tories of North Caro- 
lina, and projected and undertook the bold and well-concerted 
enterprise against St. John's Island, which failed in the execution, 
from an error not attributable to him. In the course of Greene's 
operations he was always in the rear when the army retreated, in 
the van when it advanced, and nearest to the enemy when it was 
stationary — and so active were his operations, when detached, that 
in the space of six weeks, besides the loss he inflicted on the enemy 
in killed and wounded, he took from them prisoners amounting to 
four times the number of his own corps. "The continued labours 
and exertions of all were highly meritorious, but the successful 
activity of one corps will attract particular attention. The legion, 
from its structure, was peculiarly adapted to the partisan war of 
the southern States, and by being detached against the weaker 
posts of the enemy had opportunities for displaying with advantage 
all the energies it possessed. In that extensive sweep which it 
made from the Santee to Augusta, which employed from the 15th 
of April to the 5th of June, this corps, acting in conjunction, first 
with Marion, afterwards with Pickens, and sometimes alone, had 
constituted the principal force which carried five British posts, 
and made upwards of eleven hundred prisoners."* 

But above all these services in dignity and effect, was "the bold 
and happy resolution"! with which he inspired the mind of Greene, 
to return from Deep River into South Carolina, leaving Lord 
Cornwallis to penetrate into Virginia. The effect of this move- 
ment in rescuing from subjugation the three southern States, in 
confining Lord Cornwallis to Virginia, and bringing about the 
great catastrophe at York, which closed the military operations of 
the revolution, need not be here explained. At the time it was 
suggested, the two Carolinas and Georgia were in the condition of 
British provinces, and Gen. Greene's camp was the limit of Ame- 
rican sovereignty within them. It is true that the stubborn patriot- 
ism and indomitable courage of Sumter, Marion, Pickens, and 
Clarke, still survived this general prostration, and it is also true 
that Governor Rutledge still hovered over his loved state with the 
wings of a dove and the spirit of an eagle. But without the vivi- 
fying presence of Greene and his army, these men of fortitude and 

* Marshall, Vol. IV. p. 536. t Ibid. Vol. IV. p. 384. 



153 

virtue, could only have prolonged the agony of their country's over- 
throw. 

It may be added, that after the battle of Eutaw, military opera- 
tions having been suspended by the excessive heat of the south for 
a few weeks, Lieut. Col. Lee repaired to the head-quarters of Gen. 
Washington, on a mission of importance from Gen. Greene, and 
was present at the siege and surrender of York; where, though he 
found that his native State had called all her sons to the field to 
assist in this final struggle, Mr. Jefferson, who had solemnly 
pledged "his life, his fortune, and his sacred honour," in the con- 
test, was not to be seen. 

This part of Gen. Lee's history may be closed by observing that 
when upon the termination of the last campaign in Carolina, he 
retired from the army of Gen. Greene on furlough — the only one 
he obtained during the war — that great officer who knew the value 
of men, and had been aided by the services of such men as Mor- 
gan, Wayne, Williams, Washington the younger, Howard, Lau- 
rens, Campbell, Sumter, Marion, and Pickens, used the following 
language in a letter to the president of Congress, Feb. 18, 1782. 
"Lieut. Col. Lee retires for a time for the recovery of his health. 
I am more indebted to this officer than any other, for the advan- 
tages gained over the enemy in the operations of the last campaign, 
and should be wanting in gratitude not to acknowledge the import- 
ance of his services, a detail of which is his best panegyric. " 



5?* 



* Gordon, London ed. Vol. IV. p. 254 et seq. 

[I may bs excused for inserting the following letter, and extracts from let- 
ters, from the great Washington, written in the midst of those services which, 
they reward with his precious approbation. 

"to major henry lee. 
'^Head-Quarters, near Springfield , 11 June, 1780. 

"Dear Sir — I have received your favour of this date. The spirit which has 
been exhibited by your corps gives me pleasure, and, be assured, meets with 
my thanks and approbation. As your rapid progress must have fatigued the 
cavalry in some degree, I wish you for the present to take post somewhere in 
our rear. Perhaps Chatham, or its vicinity, is as well calculated to afford 
you forage as any other place. You will, however, when you have fixed ou 
the spot, be pleased by a line to point it out to me. I shall be glad to see you 
at my quarters to-morrow morning. I am," &c. 

The rapid progress of the cavalry alluded to in the foregoing letter, arose 
from their anxiety to share in the operations which resulted in the battle of 
Springfield, where, both in resistance and pursuit of theenemy, they exhibited 
their accustomed gallantry. These little gems in the revolutionary correspon- 
dence of Washington have an inexpressible charm. — placing one among the 
scenes of our heroic age, as distinctly as Homer's poems do upon the plains of 
Troy. 

"And thought my steeds, your large supplies unknown, 
Might fail of forage in the straitened town." 

The following extract is from a letter of Washington to the President of 
Congress, of October 11th, 1780. 
"Major Lee has rendered such distinguished services, possesses so many 



154 

So far, then, up to the close of the revolution, it appears from 
the evidence of general history, that the sum of services rendered 
bj Gen. Lee to his country, although his rank was inconsiderable, 
and his authority limited, was positively great, and unreduced by 
a single act of delinquency. Besides executing the duties attach- 
ed to the several stations he occupied, with an efficiency which 
secured the confidence of his commanders, and the distinguished 
approbation of Congress, he had by the unassisted exertions of his 
own mind, risen far above their subordinate sphere, and by fertility 
of thought, as well as enterprise in arms, had been the principal 
instrument in restoring three important States to the Union. 
While Mr. Jefferson, who declared that Gen. Lee "had been too 
much trusted by his country," when clothed with the dignity and 
power of the most populous and warlike member of the confede- 
racy, yielded without an attempt at defence, or a momentary expo- 
sure of his person, her capital, her arms, her archives, and her 
honour, to a conscience-stricken traitor, and a predatory band of 
deserters. 

This was the state of Mr. Jefferson's and Gen. Lee's compara- 
tive merit, as public servants, at the time when peace and inde- 
pendence, in consequence of such spirit as the latter had exhibited, 
and in spite of the pusillanimity betrayed by the former, crowned 
the arms and ef!brts of the United States. 



talents for commanding a corps of this nature, and deserves so much credit 
for the perfection in which he has kept his corps, as well as for the handsome 
exploits he has performed, that it would be a loss to the service, and a dis- 
couragement to merit, to reduce him, and I do not see how he can be intro- 
duced into one of the regiments in a manner satisfactory to himself," &c. 
The next is an extract from a letter to John Matthews, a member of Congress 
from South Carolina, dated October 23d, 1780. 

"Lee's corps will also go to the southward. I believe it will be found very 
useful. The corps itself is an excellent one, and the officer at the head of it 
has great resources of genius."] 



II 



155 



LETTER XL 

Proceeding to the second division of Mr. Jefferson's public life, 
and confiding in his own estimate of his services, it appears that in 
May, 1782, the blast of indignation to which he bent like a reed, 
having overblown, the Legislature of Virginia more sensible of his 
political talents than of his military demerits, appointed him again, 
one of their delegates to Congress. While a member of that body, 
he proposed, as an amendment to Morris's report on the currency, 
the decimal notation of money now in use. In 1784, he was com- 
missioned by Congress to negotiate in conjunction with Dr. Frank- 
lin and Mr. Adams, treaties of commerce with such of the govern- 
ments of Europe as might be disposed to establish relations of the 
kind with the United States; and in the year following he succeed- 
ed Dr. Franklin, as minister to the court of France. In this 
situation, which was well suited to his mind, he displayed dili- 
gence and ability, which, however creditable to himself as a diplo- 
matist, efiected no important negotiation for his country.* 

In the autumn of 1790, he returned home, and in the spring 
following, as we have already seen, at the instance of Gen. Wash- 
ington, took charge of the department of State. In this station 
also his abilities were conspicuous, and until he became the patron 
of those designing individuals and deluded multitudes who endeav- 
oured to force the government of the United States into an alliance 
with France and a war with England, it may be said, they were 

[* The ability for which Mr. Jefferson is coinmended in the text, was 
evinced only in executing instructions. As an adviser upon subjects about 
which his avocation supposes peculiar information and profound knowledge, 
he was far from able. When Mr. Jay, then President of Congress, inquired 
of him, "Whether it would be useful to us to carry all our own productions or 
nonel" "he evidently showed (says Mr. Tucker, Vol. I. p. 183,) a preference 
for the Chinese policy."! He also thought the most effectual remedy for the 
evil of getting in debt to England, was to interdict our trade with her — and 
states to Mr. Pleasants, that he thinks "the trade with Great Britain as a 
ruinous one to ourselves!" (p. 216.) And Mr. Necker must have been sur- 
prised at his proposition "to draw supplies of salted provisions from America 
to France, suggesting in favour of the measure, that it was much cheaper than 
fresh meat, and that, by enabling the French people to turn a part of their 
lands from pasturage to the growth of corn, it would make the supply of that 
article more abundant." (p. 298.) 

The idea that our surplus beef and bacon could have been of an amount 
sufficient to effect sensibly the agriculture of the thirty millions of France, is 
perhaps the most extravagant idea that ever was broached — to say nothing 
of the disregard with which the propo.sition founded upon it treats those 
French palates, whose taste in cookery is so often commended in Mr. Tucker's 
work, and was so happily adopted in Mr. Jefferson's kitchen.] 



156 

laudably exerted.* His career as the Chief of Gen. Washington's 
cabinet, was, however, not a successful one, since in his hands, 
notwithstanding the influence of WasWngton's fame and wisdom, 
our relations with France degenerated into insupportable arrogance 
on the part of her agents; with England, were left perfectly unset- 
tled, both as to commerce and boundaries; and with Spain, in a 
course of injury and neglect on the part of that power, which was 
as unfavourable to the reputation as to the interest of our country. 
From this situation, our foreign relations were not retrieved until 
after Mr. Jefferson's resignation; when the treaties with Great 
Britain, Spain and Algiers, the defeat of the Indians by Gen. 
Wayne, and the suppression of the western insurrection by Gen. 
Lee, the principal of which measures Mr. Jefferson reprobated, 
placed our external and domestic aftairs on a new and satisfactory 
footing, and enabled Gen. Washington, at the opening of the session 
of Congress in 1795, to use the following language: "I trust I do 
not deceive myself while I indulge the persuasion that I have 
never yet met you at any period, when, more than at present, the 
situation of our public affairs has afforded just cause for mutual 
congratulation; and for inviting you to join with me in profound 
gratitude to the Author of all good for the numerous and extraordi- 
nary blessings we enjoy." "This interesting summary of our 
affairs with regard to the powers between whom and the United 
States controversies have subsisted; and with regard also to our 
Indian neighbours, with whom we have been in a state of enmity 
or misunderstanding, opens a wide field for consoling and gratify- 
ing reflections."! 

[* But how reprehensible his conduct then was cannot be known without a 
profounder consideration of the French faction, which then perplexed the 
counsels of this country, than there is room for here. The Memoirs of La 
Fayette, lately published, throw some \\s;ht on this subject. In his fourth 
volume he says, (See National Gazette, December 1, 1838.) that "Genet was 
sent to the United States by the Girondists, expressly charged with the task of 
disorganizing our country and exasperating its parties. He quotes, as an 
antithesis to Genet's spirit and conduct, the answer of La LMzcrne in 1778, 
when urged to endeavour to create then in America, the distinction of French 
and English party. 'I might not scruple to employ in Germany the ordinary 
expedients of diplomacy; but I should feel culpable of using them among 
these honest Americans, and a people quite new.' " 

The terms upon which Mr. Jefferson stood with this missionary of disorgani- 
zation may be seen in a letter of the former to Mr. Madison — (Tucker's Life, 
p. 444,) "He (Genet) renders my position (that of Secretary of State,) im- 
mensely difficult. He does me justice personally; and giving him time to 
vent himself, and become more cool, I am on a footing to advise him freely, 
and he respects it; but he will break out again," &c. The picture which Mr. 
Jefferson draws of himself, bowing before that petulant Jacobin until he vented 
himself, is as little enviable for its dignity, as it is consistent with propriety 
for a Secretary of State to be the confidential adviser of an envoy to his 
government; and the whole is sufficient proof of the truth of what Genet 
asserted, after he quarrelled with his friend, viz: that Mr. Jefferson had two 
languages, one for the public and another for him.] 

+ Marshall, Vol. V. pp. 642-3. 



157 

Mr. JefFei-son resigned in December, 1793, flying, as it would 
seem, from the temptations of power to the pure embraces of soli- 
tude and philosophy — where, instead of contributing to the im- 
provement of his country or the instruction of mankind, he 
appears, from his "Writings," which have been so ostentatiously 
published, to have cultivated exclusively the sciences of deception 
and slander. 

In December, 1794, accordingly, the fruit of his studies began 
to appear in the letter to Mr. Madison, with which commences 
that course of insidious detraction against Gen. Washington, which 
has been already traced out to you, that sowed the seeds of civil 
discord and foreign war, disturbed the peace and obscured the 
glory of the father of our country, was more ungrateful than unjust, 
and more relentless even than malignant. 

In 1797, Mr. Jefterson became Vice President of the United 
States— a station in which, it appears from his "Writings," he was 
altogether employed in vilifying with terms of hate and falsehood, 
the great men among his fellow-citizens who happened to differ 
with him in opinion on public matters — such as Hamilton, Jay, 
and Marshall — and in furthering his own views on the presidency 
by deluding his political friends, such as Madison, Burr, and 
Monroe, by false alarms, false professions, and false statements.* 
In 1801, his schemes were consummated, and he was elected Presi- 
dent of the United States. This exalted station, as you know, he 
occupied eight years — during which time the acts that distinguished 

[* Among the abusive writers whom Mr. Jefferson made the objects of his 
charity during this period, was the notorious Callender. Of him Mr. Tucker 
says, (Vol. II. p. 119,) "having attracted attention by the coarse vigour of his 
style, Mr. Jefferson, among others of his party, learning of Callender's indi- 
gence, made him donations of small sums of money from time to time. Thus 
encouraged, he had redoubled his efforts during the hottest of the conflict, and 
had even brought out a volume or two in which he assailed the members of 
the administration and federal party, personally and politically, with all his 

Sowers of argument and vituperation. He often wrote with great force; but 
is charges were in such a style of exaggeration, and expressed a strain of 
ribaldry and vulgarity so unusual, that he was likely to injure the cause he 
espoused yet more than to serve it." 

When, however, this unhappy man taught Mr. Jefferson the truth of that 
saying of Macbeth — 

"we but teach 

Bloody instructions, which being taught return 
To plague the inventor — " 

he denied that those donations of his, which his biographer distinctly asserts, 
encouraged Callender to redouble his .scurrilous efforts, had any thing to do 
with them, and says, in his letter to Mr. Monroe, (Vol. III. p. 494,) that they 
were merely charities, which he "was in the habit of giving to others in dis- 
tress, of the federal as well as the republican party." This discrepancy be- 
tween the account of this affair by Mr. Jefferson and his biographer might be 
settled by the publication of Mr. Jefferson's letter to Gen. S. T. Mason, while 
Callender was at his house, authorizing him to draw for fifty dollars for Cal- 
lender; and by the whole of Mr. Jefferson's correspondence with Callender.] 
20 



158 

him as a statesman were, the purchase of Louisiana, the perpetual 
embargo, and the guu-boat system. 

The first was a measure of such capital advantage to the United 
States, that it is even yet impossible to conceive the full extent of 
its utility. A century may revolve without completing the de- 
velopement of great and benignant consequences which the acqui- 
sition of that vast territory with its deep fertility, its lofty forests, 
its mineral wealth, its rich savannahs, its matchless rivers, its 
natural outlets to either ocean, is destined to produce. When we 
consider the rapid flow of population which is covering it with the 
best rudiments of social and political life, it seems as if we beheld 
the work of enchantment, rather than the ett'ect of policy; as if a 
magic wand had waved over that wide and luxuriant region, and 
was rearing upon its surface a city of empires. Whoever con- 
ceived the measure, whether it originated in an overture from the 
French Government or in a proposition from ours — or whether, as 
seems probable from Mr. Jefferson's "Writings" (Vol. III. pp. 
493, 501 and 4,) it was a project completed by degrees — rising 
from an attempt to puichase the lower country on the east bank of 
the Mississippi, with a view of securing to the United States the 
free navigation of that river, to the more splendid and important 
conception of annexing to the domain of the nation that fertile and 
extensive territory, the credit of the acquisition is solely due to 
Mr. Jefferson. He embraced the design with ardour, prosecuted 
it with zeal, and justified it with confidence. 

It must be confessed, however, that in the light in which he 
regarded its consequences, the acquisition of Louisiana, would not 
have proved what it now is, and I trust always will be, an inesti- 
mable advantage to the United States. Mr. Jefferson considered 
it as not unlikely to produce a separation of the Union, as the pro- 
bable forerunner of two confederacies, one to be composed of the 
western, and the other of the Atlantic States, (Vol. IV. p. 14.) 
"Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic 
and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the 
happiness of either part." Had this been its probable consequence, 
the purchase of Louisiana would not have been an act of wisdom 
on the part of the government of the United States. For it would 
have been neither more nor less than a contribution on the part of 
the Atlantic States of fifteen millions of dollars, for the purpose of 
detaching from their own possession all the western territory which 
they then held on both banks of the Ohio, for reducing their re- 
maining limited confederacy to insignificance, and exposing it in 
Mr. Jefferson's opinion to endless hostility.* 

But as this was not the probable consequence of the measure, as 

* Vol. III. p. 505. "Whatever power other than ourselves, holds the coun- 
try east of the Mississippi, becomes our natural enemy," (p. 512.) "We have 
seldom seen neighbourhood produce affection among nations, the reverse is 
almost the universal truth." 



159 

the greatest of all its advantages was its strong and direct ten- 
dency to perpetuate the Union, bj comprehending within its do- 
minion all the interests of each of its members, Mr. Jefferson, 
while he supposed he was entailing what would iiave been eventual 
ruin on his country, was actually endowing it with magnific sources 
of wealth, freedom, happiness, and power. 

It may be doubted likewise, whether in his conduct of the nego- 
tiation, the prudence of a statesman was displayed. It was to be 
a purchase — and the pivot on which the transaction was poised, 
•was the want of money on tlie part of the French government, 
(Vol. III. p. 502.) "As to the time of your going, you cannot too 
much hasten it, as the moment in France is critical. St. Domingo 
delays their taking possession of Louisiana, and they are in the 
last distress for money for current purposes." Robert R. Living- 
ston, a man of high character and talents, according to Mr. Jeffer- 
son's own confession, (Vol. III. p. 443,) was our resident minis- 
ter in France, and was already engaged in the negotiation, (Vol. 
III. p. 493,) when Mr. Jefterson thought fit to despatch Mr. Mon- 
roe, as a special envoy for the purpose of facilitating the purchase. 
As Mr. Livingston was every way qualified for his station, and 
was known at the time to be actually engaged in the negotiation, 
this extraordinary mission of Mr. Monroe could have had but one 
ett'ect on Mr. Livingston — that of disgusting him with his oSice 
and his employer. Its tendency in other directions, must have 
been equally pernicious. By betraying over-anxiety in our govern- 
ment to make the purchase, its natural effect was to raise the price 
demanded by France, or at least to defeat any attempt of Mr. 
Livingston to lower those demands. These consequences of the 
mission, if it had been so timed as to produce any effect at all on 
the transaction, were from the nature of things, inevitable, and 
unless it be possible to conceive that such a man as Mr. Monroe 
could, by personal address and diplomatic eloquence, overpower 
the genius of Napoleon and defeat the dexterity of Talleyrand; 
they were unattended by the slightest hope of advantage to any 
citizen of the United States but Mr. Monroe himself. He had 
been instrumental in Mr. Jefferson's election, and was somehow 
or other to be provided for. Now as Mr. Jefferson, the President, 
and Mr. Madison, the Secretary of State, were both citizens of 
Virginia, it was not possible to confer an appointment of sufficient 
dignity and emolument at home, on Mr. Monroe, who was also a 
citizen of that state. He was therefore accommodated with this 
special mission to France, which, as Mr. Livingston had settled 
the terms of the purchase before his arrival, was, though perfectly 
useless, fortunately not mischievous.* 

* The fact of Mr. Monroe's perfect uselessness on this occasion has been 
very conclusively explained by Gen. Armstrong, the successor of Mr. Living-* 
ston, in an obituary of that gentleman. See Gardner's United States Maga- 
zine. 

[A letter at page 187, Vol. III., of Sparks's Life of Gouverneur Morris, rather 



160 

Having assisted in the important work of signing the treaty of 
purchase, Mr. Monroe was despatched from France to Spain on 
another mission of pretended importance, but of no utility, and was 
thence transferred to the situation of minister to the Court of Great 
Britain, where he terminated his diplomatic career under Mr. 
Jefferson, as he had begun it under Gen. Washington, by depart- 
ing from the spirit of his instructions, and by signing a treaty so 
little acceptable to his government, that his friend and patron Pre- 
sident Jefferson, would not even submit it for consideration to the 
Senate. 

If there be an absurdity of American statesmanship, extravagant 
and ruinous enough to counterbalance the fortunate policy which 
compassed the acquisition of Louisiana, it is to be found in Mr. 
Jefferson's famous embargo. It is impossible for the most fantasti- 
cal theorist to conceive any combination of political ideas more 
puerile and visionary, than those which entered into this project. 
It was intended to humble Great Britain if not to annihilate her, 
by withholding our exports of flour and grain, and was persisted 
in after it was proved that the whole of our exports of flour for a 
year, would not supply one week's consumption for the city of 
London I 

With this suicide of our prosperous navigation and growing 
commerce, a measure which to the last Mr. Jefferson extolled as 
the master-stroke of his political judgment, which was the object 
of contempt and ridicule abroad, and of misery and disgust at 
home, may be associated as a kindred, though a lesser folly, the 
annihilation of our navy, and the substitution of a flotilla of gun- 
boats. As the perpetual embargo was declared to be intended for 
the protection of our navigation and commerce, (Vol. IV. p. 148,) 
so was this destruction of our infant navy affirmed to be the estab- 



excites than satisfies curiosity on the subject of the respective merit of Robert 
R. Livingston and Mr. Jefferson in the purchase of Louisiana. The follow- 
ing extracts may provoke the reader to seek it in that interesting work. 

"I like well your treaty, and have declared to my friends, some of whom 
are not pleased with the declaration, that it is in my opinion one of the best 
we have made, not only for the main business, but also for the formal and 
incidental matter." ******* 

"To tell you an important truth, my friend, you have saved that administra- 
tion, who, in return, will never forgive you for performing, without orders 
and without powers, such great public service. Your conduct is a satire on 
theirs, for you have gained what they did not dare to ask. Had the bargain been 
disagreeable to those states by whom the President expects to be re-chosen at 
the next election, you might have been disavowed, but it secures the western 
states, quiets the southern, and is consequently popular." 

****** "If I am rightly informed, offence is taken. 
Vanity has certainly been wounded, because confidants must know the facts, 
and vanity is the leading trait of a certain character. You will learn from 
your friends here, how IJiey stand at head-quarters, and whether your services 
have strengthened their interest."] 



161 

lishment of our maritime streno;th and the means of securing us 
the enjoyment of peace, (Vol. III. p. 409, et passim.) 

On the credit side of this account, Mr. Jefferson and his idola- 
ters have insisted that he has a right to charge the abolition of 
weekly levees, as introducing a simplicity in the carriage of the 
Executive congenial with the spirit of a republic. But both he 
and they should have recollected that inasmuch as Mr. Jefferson 
was not a personage eagerly sought after, and studiously gazed at 
like Gen. Washington, if he had continued the weekly levees, in- 
stead of reducing those "forms of government," to three occasions 
yearly, his preparations for visitors, his sitting up for company, 
would have been "calling spirits from the vasty deep." 

Connected with this pretension and equally frivolous, is his 
claim to republican modesty and plain dealing in opening the ses- 
sions of Congress by a written message, instead of a speech. As 
I have already intimated, the difference of these two modes of pro- 
ceeding, if worth estimating, is certainly in favour of the frank 
and respectful custom of Gen. Washington. Every government 
has its proper and characteristic habits. Those of pomp and splen- 
dour belong to a monarchy, those of simplicity and fairness are 
suited to a republic. Into these Gen. Washington, filled with 
genuine republican virtue, promptly and easily entered. He met 
the co-ordinate branches of government face to face, saluted them 
with dignity and addressed them with candour. Knowing that 
he had been elevated to the Chief Magistracy of his country by 
honest means, he was not ashamed to exhibit the simple dignity 
of his office.* Mr. Jefferson, besides being extremely ungraceful 
in his personal carriage, was conscious of having risen to power by 
unworthy and clandestine courses, by inconsistencies, misrepre- 
sentations, evasions, and calumnies, and must naturally have pre- 
ferred addressing the representatives of the nation from the recesses 
of his cabinet, to the open encounter of their gaze and scrutiny in 
the delivery of official orations. Under the influence of this feel- 
ing he would probably have left the rostrum, with that bashful 
grace and retrospective caution, with which a Virginia attorney 
first alights from his new Philadelphia coachj or in other words, 
as a bear descends a tree. 

This spurious modesty had, no doubt, an influence in the re- 
trenchment of the levees, which Mr. Jefferson announces to Mr. 
Macon, (Vol. III. p. 470,) as among the great measures of political 
reformation, by which his reign was to be distinguished. He could 
not but feel the disadvantage of placing his tall, but unmajestic 
figure, his uneasy manners and studied affability, in weekly con- 



Mi 



'In himself was all his state, 



ore solemn than the tedious pomp which waits 
On princes, when their rich retinue long 
Of horses led and grooms besmeared with gold 
Dazzles the crown."] 



162 

trast with what men remembered and adored, of the warlike form, 
the noble deportment, and generous modesty of Washington, in 
avowed opposition to whose example and principles he had come 
Into office. 

His pretensions to the credit of economical reform in the 
expenses of the government, though confidently urged, are not well 
founded. His claim on this head consisted mainly in disbanding 
the provisional army of President Adams, in reducing the navy, 
and in abolishing the offices created by the law imposing direct 
taxes. But the increase of the army and of the navy, as well as 
the direct taxes, were the just and necessary consequences of the 
situation in which our commerce and character were placed by the 
outrages of the French Directory. When Mr. Jefferson came into 
power not only had that atrocious oligarchy ceased to exist, but 
our differences with France had been terminated by a treaty signed 
the 30th of September, 1800, and the laws providing for the increase 
of the military means of the country had all been in consequence 
repealed. Notwithstanding these public and recorded facts, Mr. 
Jefferson solemnly claimed (Vol. IV. p. 434,) not only credit but 
reward for this reduction of taxation and patronage, as if they had 
really been measures of relief for which the country stood indebted 
to his judgment and patriotism. 

So complete and bewildering was the fanaticism, with which 
he succeeded in afflicting the intelligence of his country, that the 
Assembly of Virginia, in their address upon his retirement from 
the office of President, return him thanks for the favour he con- 
ferred on the nation by these measures, (Vol. IV. p. 438,) and to 
this farcical blunder of that deliberative body, he referred in apply- 
ing to their successors for privilege to sell his estate by lottery. 
The Assembly of Virginia at the same time thank him for explod- 
ing "the monarchic maxim that a national debt is a national bless- 
ing," and for paying off in the eight years of his government thirty- 
three millions of our debt. 

As to the first part of this double benefaction, it would be worth 
while to estimate it, if the maxim had ever been adopted by the 
government of the United States. When the system of finance 
suggested by Hamilton was under discussion in Congress, one of 
the objections to it, was, as I have already observed, that it would 
create an enormous and unextinguishable debt. To this it was 
answered that the debt already existed, and that the adoption of 
Hamilton's plan, would not involve the creation of a new debt but 
would be paying an old one — and that the certificates of this debt 
which the government would be required to issue to the public 
creditors would become a circulating medium, and pro tunto would 
supply our want of a metallic currency. Then, to parry this per- 
suasive argument, the adversaries of the measure, char<>;ed its sup- 
porters with acting on the corrupt doctrine that a public debt is a 
public blessing. To this unjust reproach and shallow sophistry, 



163 

Mr. Jefferson gave countenance and circulation, and bj so doing 
it would appear, acquired, in the opinion of the Virginia Assembly, 
a title to the gratitude and applause of his country I 

But the members of that "deep divan," were so intent on thanks- 
giving, that they did not perceive the hideous incompatibility exist- 
ing between their two themes of adoration. If the debts due by 
the nation, had not, in opposition to the opinions of Mr. Jefferson, 
been honestly assumed and effectively funded at the instance of 
Hamilton and his friends, who thereby exposed themselves to the 
discredit of this "monarchic maxim," Mr. Jefferson never could 
have had the glory of paying off" the thirty-three millions. And 
this too, as it was, they should have recollected, he was chiefly 
enabled to do by the salutary effects of Jay's treaty, a measure, 
which the lauded President, and the laudatory Assemblymen, in- 
cessantly decried. 

In regard to his reduction of the diplomatic establishment of the 
United States in Europe to three ministers, which is vauntingly 
proclaimed to Mr. Macon — it is true that the mission to Berlin, 
which the elder Adams had instituted for the benefit of his son, 
was abolished by the administration of Mr. Jefferson. But to 
balance this instance of economy, he doubled our principal embas- 
sies in Europe, successively — first by associating Mr. Monroe with 
Mr. Livingston in France, then with Mr. Pinckney in Spain, and 
last by inflicting similar annoyance on Mr. Monroe himself, at 
London, in the person of Mr. William Pinckney, as stated by Mr. 
Jefferson in a letter to Mr. Monroe, (Vol. IV. p. 106.) "You con- 
sider the mission of Mr. Pinckney as an associate, to have been in 
some way injurious to you." In addition he nominated Mr. Short 
on a special mission to attend the imperial interview at Erfurth, in 
1808, a piece of meddlesome extravagance which was beyond the 
endurance even of a subservient Senate. 

This complex diplomatic machinery was productive of no advan- 
tage to the foreign relations of the United States, which were left 
by Mr. Jefferson, as every body knows, in a most inflamed and 
precarious condition. 

But if the merit of the Louisiana purchase be admitted to over- 
balance not otdy President Jefferson's minor faults, but the fatal 
empiricism which dictated the gunboat system and the indefinite 
embargo — this destroying our commerce and revenue, — that strang- 
ling the herculean infancy of our navy; the invention of the nulli- 
fying doctrine to which he asserts an incontestable claim, (Vol. IV. 
p. 344,) throws in a weight of demerit that must turn the scales 
against his pretensions. When it is considered that the same mind 
gave birth to these prodigious chimeras — that the monstrous doc- 
trine of nullification and the horrible policy of the embargo, could 
not co-exist without inevitable destruction to the Union, the coun- 
try will feel disposed to be thankful for having escaped the mischief 



164 

of Mr. Jefferson's contrivances, ratlier than for having enjoyed the 
benefit of his services. 

If Gen. Jackson were to persuade the States of our confederacy 
to adopt as orthodox the nullifying theory, and then were to in- 
duce Congress to lay an indefinite embargo, there can be no doubt 
he would break up the Union in less than sixteen months. As 
little doubt can there be that he would at once cancel all the claims 
which his great and substantial services have established to the 
gratitude of his country, and that he would prove himself about as 
sincere a friend to the constitution as Guy Faux was to the Eng- 
lish parliament. Yet Mr. Jett'erson, who, instead of overthrowing 
in well-fought fields the invaders of his native soil, retired from 
danger faster than it approached, and slunk from office at the very 
time when ''the post of honour was a. public station," endeavoured 
to persuade the States to adopt and practise this nullifying doc- 
trine, and induced Congress to lay an indefinite embargo. 

In order to countervail his admitted errors, and to enhance his 
supposed virtues as a statesman, the admirers of Mr. Jefferson 
have been in the habit of extolling his pretensions to a name in 
literature and a place in the galaxy of science. 

As a scholar it is but too obvious from his writings that his 
merits were of the humblest description. His diction is any thing 
but refined. Redundant of words and foul with gallicisms, neolo- 
gisms and vulgarisms, it is neither arrayed in the splendour of 
classical wealth, nor inspired by the natural and wanton spirit of 
English ease and vigour. His misquotation from the second 
Georgic, 

"Flumina amo sylvasque inglorius,"* 

is pregnant proof that he had never comprehended the meaning, 
felt the spirit, nor enjoyed the harmony of that exquisite passage; 
and that he was acquainted neither with the character which Virgil 
has left of himself nor with the beauty of his versification. 

If with this anti-classical evidence be coupled his assertion (Vol. 
IV. p. 331,) that the French is "the most copious and eloquent 
language in the living world" — a case of complete gothicism will 
be made out against this pseudo lover of letters. A Frenchman 
might be pardoned for preferring his own language to ours, as a 
kitten may be supposed to prefer cat's milk to any other. But for 
a man whose infant tongue lisped the language of Shakspeare and 
Milton and Barrow and Burke — a privilege which the compatriots 
of Homer and Demosthenes might have envied; to declare the 
French the most copious and eloquent of living languages, argues 

[* Professor Tucker passes this misquotation without notice, though he 
extracts the passage containing it. Nor do I remember a single passage in 
all Mr. Jefferson's writings which evinces that he truly entertained that affec- 
tion which he misquotes Virgil to claim for himself; and will venture to assert 
that he never felt so kindly towards a river or a wood, as when the former 
shielded him from Arnold, and the latter hid him from Tarleton.J 



165 

a hopeless degree of insensibility to the most powerful and agitat- 
ing forms of human eloquence. On this point it is enough to look 
at Delille's translation of Paradise Lost. 

In regard to his pretensions on the score of science, it is remark- 
able that notwithstanding his avowed predilection and even "pre- 
destination" for philosophical studies, (Vol. IV. p. 126,) he con- 
tributed nothing to the stock of human knowledge, though he 
flourished in a most inquisitive and luminous age, and lived in lei- 
sure and retirement at least twenty years. 

His Notes on Virginia, a puerile and imperfect work, was con- 
sidered promising for a beginner in philosophical speculation^ but 
except as a slender repository of traditional facts, is now neither 
valued nor known by men of science. There is among his letters 
one, (written while he was our Minister in France,) addressed to 
M. Le Roy, of the French Academy of Sciences, (Vol. II. p. 57,) 
in which an account of the easterly breezes prevailing during a 
part of the summer in lower Virginia is given, and a very formal 
solution of the phenomenon is attempted. In the statement of the 
problem it is evident that Mr. Jefferson "welcomes fancies for 
facts," in order to make room for his reasoning, which, though in- 
tended, no doubt, to recommend him as a member of the academy,* 
is as trite and inconclusive as any patchwork of philosophical char- 
latanerie that ever was before or since contrived. He confounds 
the progress of settlement and observation with the range of the 
easterly breezes — seeing in the fact of their prevalence being 
noticed farther and farther from the seacoast, the phantasm, that 
they extended farther and farther into the interior country, induced 
by the sparse and limited openings made in the primeval forests 
by our early settlers. This is his language. "The information 
given by me to the Marquis de Chastellux, was that the sea breezes 
which prevail in the lower parts of Virginia, during the summer 
months, and in the warm parts of the day, had made a sensible 
progress into the interior country; that formerly and within the 
memory of persons living, they extended little above Williams- 
burg, that afterwards they became sensible as high as Richmond, 
and that at present they penetrate sometimes as far as the first 
mountains, which are above a hundred miles farther from the sea- 
coast than Williamsburg is." Now this, instead of being philoso- 
phy, is nothing but the more vulgar than common error of putting 
the cart before the horse. Instead of the breezes following the 
population from the seacoast first to Williamsburg, then to Rich- 
mond, and then to "the first mountains," the population followed 
the breezes and found them prevailing with various degrees of 
steadiness and force, at these successive distances from the ocean. 

* He did not succeed in this object until the 26th of December, 1801, when 
he was elected a member of the French Academy of inscriptions and belles- 
lettres. From the date of this distinction, "I see this useful deduction" that it 
was conferred, not on the philosopher but on the President. 
21 



166 

The breeze which refreshed the hardy woodsman had waved the 
high branches of the oak which he felled to the ground. 

But Mr. Jefferson undertakes to show from the effect of heat on 
the temperature of the earth's surface and the air resting on it, as 
compared with its effects on the ocean and its superincumbent air, 
— that the summer sea breezes which prevail in lower Virginia, 
had, before the country was settled by our ancestors, visited only 
the sea coast, and had since gradually extended into the interior of 
the country, in consequence of the increased cultivation and expo- 
sure to the sun of the earth's surface. How any man could adopt 
this hypothesis, as early as 1786, you will doubtless think a prob- 
lem much more difficult of solution than the extensive prevalence 
of these sea breezes, when you recollect that even now at least 
three-fourths of the surface of lower Virginia, though interspersedly 
settled, is covered with forests. Forty-Hve years ago the propor- 
tion of cleared land must have been much smaller; and even if we 
could admit Mr. Jefferson's ratiocination as to the action of the 
sun's rays on the surface of the ocean, on the earth when cleared, 
and when covered with forests, it would be impossible to conceive 
that the sparse and inconsiderable settlements which existed be- 
tween Richmond and "the first mountains" in the year 1786, could 
have had any sensible effect on the force or direction of the winds. 

Mr. Jefferson seems not to have considered, that if, according to 
his theory, this new impulse and extensive range were given to the 
sea breeze, a corresponding increase of force and extension must 
have occurred in the land breeze, and would have been observed 
by mariners along our coast. No such thing, however, is believed 
to have happened, or is pretended by him to have taken place. 
You have no doubt observed that this easterly breeze prevailing 
from about the last of June until the middle of August in Virginia, 
by day, is always succeeded at night by a gentle air from the 
south-west. This, which is known to be the effect of the altered 
state of comparative temperature in the surfaces of the earth and of 
the ocean, the operation of the same causes, being reversed, would, 
in restoring the equilibrium of the atmosphere, be increased in 
force, and extent of prevalence exactly in proportion to the aug- 
mented intensity of the sea breeze; as the lengthened vibration of 
a pendulum on one side of the perpendicular, extends the range of 
its motion on the other. 

Throughout his dissertation he appears to treat light and heat as 
identical; but to compensate for this error, he discovers that the 
heaviest air resides in the higher regions of the atmosphere! "These 
mountains constitute the highest lands in the United States; the 
air on them must consequently be very cold and heavy, and have 
a tendency to flow both to the east and west." (P. 60.) Without 
insisting on the old Newtonian notion of gravity, it may be con- 
sidered strange that with this tendency to move, the heavy air 
should remain stationary, particularly as it is never found in ele- 



167 

vated situations by travellers, who in climbing up high mountains 
invariably complain of the irrespirable lightness of the atmosphere 
on their summits. Such tangled philosophical gossamer as this, it 
must be confessed, was likely to confer any thing but glory on a 
nation which had produced, and had just been represented in Paris 
by, Franklin. 

If we follow our philosopher from the physical to the moral world, 
•we shall find that as his speculations on matter are fantastical, so 
his creed as to mind is material, and that his doctrines are as ridi- 
culous as his practice was deterring. His ungenerous conduct 
towards Hamilton, his deceit and ingratitude towards Gen. Wash- 
ington, confessed to Mr. Madison, in explaining the letter to 
Mazzei, have been alread}' touched upon. The duplicity of his 
professions to Col. Burr, his ferocious persecution of that individual 
—his repeated and deliberate inconsistencies as to matters of fact, 
•will recur to your memory without being recapitulated, and cannot 
fail to convince you that in respect of the practice of virtue and 
the cultivation of science, his claims to admiration were equally 
factitious. 

His ethical doctrines which are found chiefly in his correspon- 
dence with Mr. Adams, Mr. Short, and Dr. Rush, in the fourth 
volume of his "Writings," are surprisingly inept and presumptuous. 
To Mr. Adams he exclaims, (p. 272,) "I have often wondered for 
what good end the sensations of grief could be intended. All our 
other passions within proper bounds have an useful object." And 
he adds — "I wish the pathologists then would tell us what is the 
use of grief in the economy, and of what good it is the cause, proxi- 
mate or remote." Now whatever pathologists might say, moralists 
would readily have explained to Mr. Jefferson the chastening power 
of grief over the other passions. How it rebukes avarice, mitigates 
anger, disarms envy, moderates ambition, and sanctifies love. How 
it raises the mind from earthly to heavenly things; from subjects 
of temporary interest, to objects of eternal hope. 

"Sweet are the uses of adversity; 
Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, 
Wears yet a precious jewel in its head." 

In truth, the Swan of Avon was a better philosopher than the Sage 
of Monticello.* 

He assures Mr. Short, (p. 321,) that St. Paul was an impostor, 
and (p. 325,) ridicules "the whimsies of Plato's foggy brain," 
because, as it would seem, the knowledge of the animal economy, 

[* In a letter to one of his daughters (I believe) Mr. Jay says — "It is not 
pleasant to be in affliction nor in the rain; and yet both are dispensed by the 
same benevolent hand; the one to produce medicine for spiritual maladies; 
the other to produce supplies for animal life. Many have said and many will 
say with David, who was no stranger to distress — "in \ery faithfulness hast 
thou afflicted me."] 



16S 

possessed by that ancient philosopher, was infeiior to that displayed 
near two thousand years after his time, by Mrs. Bryan, in her 
"Conversations on Chemistry."* It is not worth while to refer you 

[* Yet the admirers of Jeremy Bentham confess that Plato anticipated him 
in the use of that exhaustive rnelhod o( reasoning which they so much extol; 
and Lord Bacon, the first person in Mr. Jefferson's trinity, recognises in the 
writings of that immortal philosopher his own inductive or analytical system. 
(See a late number of the Westntiinster Review — and the article on Benthavih 
Method.) 

In connexion with Mr. Jefferson's abuse of such persons as Plato and St. 
Paul, it is illustrative of his character to recollect the sort to which he tender- 
ed honour and respect. To one of these he writes, soon after his installation 
as President — "it is with heartfelt satisfaction that, in the first moments of my 
public action, I can hail you with welcome to our land, tender to you the 
homage of its respect and esteem," &c. &c. And to the notorious Tom Paine 
he tendered a passage to America in a public vessel, and tells him in his letter 
of invitation — "I am in hopes you will find us returned generally to sentiments 
worthy of former times. In these it will be your glory to have steadity 
laboured, and with as much effect as any man living. That you may long live 
to continue your useful labours, and to reap their reward in the thankfulness of 
nations, is my sincere prayer." 

M. de Tocqueville remarks, (Democracy in America, p. 287,) "The Ameri- 
cans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their 
minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; 
and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary 
faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live." 

This has been regarded as a high compliment to American democracy, and 
the more so, as coming from one who is certainly not its friend. Yet among 
the first uses which Mr. Jefferson, who has been called the apostle of liberty 
and the father of our navy, (fictions equally gross,) made of his presidential 
authority, was to desecrate a public ship to the service of Tom Paine, the 
notorious reviler of Christianity and of him Avhom Mr. Jefferson himself has 
praised as the father of the republic. This was considered at the time such 
an outrage upon the best faith and feelings of the country that Mr. Tucker 
thinks it calls for vindication, which he accordingly makes in his own pe^ 
culiar way. He admits (Vol. II. p. 96,) that "When we consider, indeed, how 
many of the American people had been scandalized by Paine's Age of Rea- 
son, and scarcely in a less degree by his letter to Gen. Washington, mere pru- 
dence would have dictated a different course to Mr. Jefterson on this occasion; 
and had he been the calculating, interested being he has been depicted by his 
enemies, shaping all his words and acts to some fixed design, he would have 
evaded Paine's application." Yet just before, while defending this act of 
courtesy to Paine, from being construed into an approbation of his attacks on 
Christianity and Washington, this ingenious logician had said, that it was 
unfair to attribute it to "any other consideration than that of Paine's services 
in the revolution, and the support he was yet able to give to the republican cause 
(that is, Mr. Jefferson's party,) in America.'" That this was the true cause of 
his being brought over is obvious enough from Mr. Jefferson's own "sincere 
prayer," that he might long live to continue his "useful labours;'^ and the 
"calculating, interested being" who imported him, thought that scandalizing 
"many of the American people," was a cheap price to pay for a continuance 
of such services. And this supposition will lose every shade of doubt when 
we remember that the letters composing Paine's most recent and (lo the "scan- 
dalized" Americans,) most obnoxious political pamphlet, had but lately passed 
through Mr. Jefferon's hands to the press, as appears from his very letter of 
invitation to Paine, which concluded with the burst of praise and gratitude 
above cited, and assurances of the "high esteem and affectionate attachment" 
of his exalted corre.spondent, while his heart was yet warmed with the first 



169 

to his puerile and shallow speculations in support of materialism; 
which, though he appears to have rummaged the Dictionary of 
Bayle manfully, are remarkable for nothing so much as a want of 
that learning, ingenuity, and speciousness, by which such sophisms 
are usually sought to be recommended. He holds, (Vol. IV. pp. 
332, 333,) that the soul of man, and even that God himself is 
matter or nothing. That is, — to lose sight of feeling and revela- 
tion, and to wander with him into metaphysics, — that not only are 
sorrow and hope material aft'ections, but that the first cause of all 
matter, is matter itself; or that creation had no creator, the universe 
of effects, no cause. 

But returning from his jejune and vapid scepticisms to the esti- 
mate of his public character, it may be reasonably assumed, that 
his merits as a philosopher in letters, physics, ethics, or theology, 
are not of a description to ennoble his qualities, or canonize his 
defects, as a statesman. And we may firmly and safely rest on 
this conclusion, that when the people of the United States shall 
take an unimpassioned view of Mr. Jefferson's character as a public 
servant, making a liberal allowance of praise for the good of which 
he was the author, and extenuating as far as the most indulgent 
justice will allow, the impurity of his motives, the insincerity of 
his sentiments, the mischief of his opinions, and the errors of his 
conduct, they will be compelled to admit, that if the country stands 
indebted to him at all, on the general account, the balance in his 
favour is very small indeed. 



glow of his fire-new honours. Nor is the elation they are apt to produce pro- 
pitious to the exercise of "mere prudence," a virtue for which, Mr. Tucker 
well knows, Mr. Jetferson was by no means remarkable. Its introduction, 
therefore, is quite as gratuitous as his attack upon the federalists in the note 
on the preceding page, that "some of the federal families found some soothing 
to their mortification in having songs sung by their children" in ridicule of 
"Beau Dawson." How earnest must Mr. Tucker be to depreciate that party, 
when for the sake of this frivolous surmise, he thus commemorates the half- 
brother of Mr. Monroe, who was certainly as amiable in his deportment as 
"studious of his personal appearance!"] 



170 



LETTER XII. 

In entering upon the second division of Gen. Lee's public life, 
it is natural to reflect on the opposite influence of the peace, as it 
modified his destiny, and affected the career of Mr. Jefferson. 
Had the war been persevered in but a little longer, there is ample 
reason to believe that in consequence of the conspicuous services 
of Gen. Lee, known to the army, felt by the nation, and testified 
by Gen. Greene in his letter to the President of Congress, he would 
soon have been promoted to the command of one of our principal 
armies, and would have stood forth in rank and position as he was 
in reality and effect, inferior only to Washington and Greene, in 
patriotic service and military glory. 

On the other hand, it is fair to presume, that but for the return 
of peace, the pacific qualities which Mr. Jefferson had exhibited 
in the midst of war and invasion, could never have engaged the 
confidence of his country, or roused him from that bed of rest to 
which he protests he was driven, neither by the audacity of Arnold, 
nor the fame nor force of Cornwallis; nor by the fear of wounds or 
of death or of impeachment; but by a sudden diffidence in the 
merits of his early education, and the intolerable fatigue of two 
years of official life! 

• Captique dolis lachrymisque coacti, 



Cluos neque Tydydes, nee Larissseus Achilles, 
Non anni domuere decent, non mille carinee." 

Peace, however, fortunately for the country, was the speedy con- 
sequence of those exertions which, more than compensating for the 
retirement of Governor Jefferson, rescued the three Southern States 
from British domination, and compelled Cornwallis to surrender 
at York. Military virtues being no longer demanded, and the 
arts of policy prevailing in public estimation over fame in arms, 
Mr. Jefferson recovered as suddenly from the oppression of diffi- 
dence and lassitude, as he had unexpectedly sunk under them, 
returned to public life, and as we have seen, by the clemency and 
connivance of the Virginia Legislature, as well as by the kindness 
and confidence of Gen. Washington, regained in process of time 
public favour. 

To the effect of this state of things may be added, in accounting 
for the comparative inactivity of this part of Gen. Lee's career, 
the facts, that he appears to have had but slight ambition for any 
other than military employments, and that he was at an early 
period embraced in that popular disfavour, by which, in consequence 



171 

of Mr. Jefferson's machinations, all Gen. Washington's prominent 
supporters in Virginia were visited. 

Soon after the close of the Revolution we find him, however, a 
member of the Virginia delegation in the Congress of the United 
States;* in which situation he devoted himself to forwarding those 
measures that prepared the way for the adoption of the constitution. 
He was also amons; those of Gen. VS^ashington's friends who most 
earnestly persuaded him to undertake the all-important duties ot 
the first presidency;! and happening to be in the vicinity of Mount 
Vernon when Wasliington was about to fill for the first time the 
office of President, on the impulse of the moment he prepared the 
address which was presented to that illustrious man by his neigh- 
bours, and was so well adapted to the occasion as to be thought by 
Marshall worthy of being transferred to the pages of his history .if 
"The sentiments of veneration and affection which were felt by all 
classes of his fellow-citizens for their patriot chief, were mani- 
fested by the most flattering marks of heartfelt respect; and by 
addresses which evinced the unlimited confidence reposed in his 
virtues and talents. Although a place cannot be given to these 
addresses generally, yet that from the citizens of Alexandria de- 
rives such pretensions to particular notice from the recollection 
that it is to be considered as an eff'usion from the hearts of his 
neighbours and private friends, that its insertion may be pardoned. 
It is in the following words. 

"Again your country commands your care. Obedient to its 
wishes, unmindful of your ease, we see you again relinquishing the 
bliss of retirement; and this too at a period of life, when nature 
itself seems to authorize a preference of repose! 

"Not to extol your glory as a soldier; not to pour forth our 
gratitude for past services; not to acknowledge the justice of the 
unexampled honour which has been conferred upon you by the 
spontaneous and unanimous suffrages of three millions of freemen, 
in your election to the supreme magistracy; nor to admire the 
patriotism which directs your conduct, do your neighbours and 
friends now address you. Themes less splendid but more endear- 
ing impress our minds. The first and best of citizens must leave 
us: our aged must lose their ornament; our youth their model; 
our agriculture its improver; our commerce its friend; our infant 
academy its protector; our poor their benefactor; and the interior 
navigation of the Potomac (an event replete with the most exten- 
sive utility, already, by your unremitted exertions, brought into 
partial use,) its institutor and promoter. 

"Farewell! — go! and make a grateful people happy, a people, 
who will be doubly grateful when they contemplate this recent sacri- 
fice for their interest. 

"To that Being who maketh and unmaketh at his will, we com- 

* Marshall, Vol. V. p. 136. t Ibid. t Ibid., Vol. V. pp. 155-6. 



172 

mend you; and after the accomplishment of the arduous business 
to which you are called, may he restore to us again, the best of men, 
and the most beloved fellow-citizen I" As a member of the Con- 
vention of Virginia which ratified the federal constitution, he was 
distinguished for zeal and eloquence in favour of that measure.* 
As Governor of Virginia he served the full term of three years, and 
besides executing the ordinary duties of his office, commanded the 
army sent against the western insurgents; whose dangerous out- 
rages, though countenanced by Mr. Jefferson, and nourished by the 
sympathy and assistance of at least one of his leading friends, Gen. 
Lee repressed completely and without bloodshed. 

Subsequently to this, he was a member of the Virginia Assembly, 
and in the debates on the famous resolutions of Mr. Madison, took 
a leading and conspicuous part. Afterwards in compliance with 
the wishes of Gen. Washin<rton, he became again a candidate for 
Congress, and though contending with the tide of opposition which 
was then setting against the federalists, carried his election. While 
a member of that Congress he prepared those resolutions on the 
death of Gen. Washington which seem destined to endless associa- 
tion with the fame of the hero they commemorate; and as the chosen 
organ of a nation's grieft delivered a funeral oration before the 
two houses of Congress, which was admired for nervous brevity of 
language, and for deep and pathetic energy of feeling. 

To the various other testimonies of respect and veneration by 
which the representatives of the people endeavoured to do honour 
to his departed friend, Gen. Lee most anxiously contributed, both 
in his public and in his private character, as may be seen by the 
following letters! addressed to him on behalf of Mrs. Washington, 
and written about the time Mr. Jefferson was congratulating him- 
self and his friends on the disappearance of "the Washington 
popularity." 

"Mount Vernon, Jan. \6th, 1800. 
"Dear Sir — I had the honour, last evening, to receive your favour 
of the 8th inst. enclosing the oration, which was presented to Mrs. 
Washington. She requests me to assure you of the grateful sensi- 

* Robertson's Reports of the Debates in the Virginia Convention. 

t In the report of the joint committee which was appointed by Congress, "to 
devise the mode by which the nation should express its feelings on this melan- 
choly occasion," and whose report was adopted; it was resolved, "that the 
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, be 
desired to request one of the members of Congress to deliver a funeral oration." 
Mr. Jefferson was then Vice-President of the United States and President of 
the Senate. So that for paying this last and most solemn honour to the memo- 
ry of Washington, he concurred in the choice of a man whom he had repre- 
sented to Washington himself as every way vile and contemptible. This is 
sufficient to shew the insincerity of his sorrow for Gen. Washington's death, 
or of his abhorrence for Gen. Lee's character. 

t In MS. 



173 

bility witli which she receives this tribute of respectful and aftec- 
tionate regard paid to the memorj of her dear departed husbandj 
and, at the same time, permit me to say, my dear sir, that the as- 
surance you give, tliat, whenever it shall please heaven to take her 
from among us, her remains will be placed in the same tomb with 
his whom she held most dear, fulfils the first wish of her heart. 

"With best wishes for your health and happiness, I am, &c. 

"Tobias Lear. 

"Gen. Lee." 

"Mount Vernon, April 23(?, 1800. 

"Dear Sir — At the request of Mrs. Washington, I have the 
honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter to her of the 10th 
instant, and to convey her best thanks for your friendly attention 
in communicating the unanimous assent of Congress for extending 
to her the right of franking. This evidence of personal attention, 
from the representatives of our nation, has impressed her mind with 
grateful sensibility. 

"For the repeated assurances of your disposition to contribute 
by every means in your power, to her happiness or convenience, 
Mrs. Washington begs you to accept her sincere thanks, and at the 
same time to receive her prayers for your health and happiness, in 
which most cordially unites, dear sir, 

"Your respectful and obedient servant, 

'*ToBiAs Lear. 

"Gen. Lee." 

You are probably not altogether unacquainted with the history 
of the business which these letters bring into view. One of the 
proceedings of Congress was to obtain the consent of Mrs. Wash- 
ington to place the remains of her husband at the disposal of the 
government, but Mr. Jefferson and his friends gaining the as- 
cendancy and coming into power, the obligation of honour which 
had thus been added to the debt of gratitude, was shamefully 
evaded, and left unfulfilled. The remains of Gen. Washington, 
as well as those of his amiable, beloved and aff*ectionate wife, re- 
main where they were first placed, in the turf-covered vault of Mount 
Vernon. 

Among the resolutions unanimously adopted by both houses of 
Congress were the two following: — 

"That a marble monument be erected by the United States at the 
City of Washington, and that the family of Gen. Washington be 
requested to permit his body to be deposited under it, and that the 
monument be so designed as to commemorate the great events of 
his military and political life." 

"That the President of the United States be requested to direct 
a copy of these resolutions to be transmitted to Mrs. Washington, 
assuring her of the profound respect Congress will ever bear to her 
22 



174 

person and character, of their condolence on the late aftecting dis- 
pensation of Providence, and intreating her assent to the interment 
of the remains of Gen. Washington, in the manner expressed in the 
first resolution." 

Marshall relates the abortion of these sorrowful and solemn pro- 
ceedings in a passage which, as far as I know, has never been con- 
tradicted nor even commented on, by Mr. Jefferson or his friends. 

"To the letter of the President, which transmitted to Mrs. 
Washington the resolutions of Congress, and of which his Secretary- 
was the bearer, that lady answered, "taught by the great example 
which I have so long had before me, never to oppose my private 
wishes to the public will, I must consent to the request made by 
Congress, which you have had tlie goodness to transmit to me; and 
in doing this, I need not, I cannot say what a sacrifice of individual 
feeling I make to a sense of public duty." The monument however 
has not been erected. That the great events of the political as well as 
military life of Gen. Washington, should be commemorated, could 
not be pleasing to those who had condemned, and continued to con- 
demn the whole course of his administration. This resolution, 
therefore, though it passed unanimously, had many enemies. That 
party which had long constituted the opposition, and which, though 
the minority for the moment, nearly divided the House of Repre- 
sentatives, declared its preference for the equestrian statue which 
had been voted by Congress at the close of the war. This was 
taking Mr. Jefferson's hint, (Vol. III. pp. 373, to 377,) that respect 
might be manifested for the General, but by no means for the Presi- 
dent. The division between a statue and a monument, was so 
nearly equal that the session passed away without an appropriation 
for either. The public feeling soon subsided, and those who pos- 
sessed the ascendancy over the public sentiment, employed their 
influence to draw odium on the men who favoured a monument; to 
represent that measure as a part of a general system to waste the 
public money; and to impress the idea that the only proper monu- 
ment to the memory of a meritorious citizen, was that which the 
people would erect in their affections.* 

Upon this subject it is painful to dwell. Let us hope that our 
country will yet recover from these delusions, and will perform 
with sincerity and good taste, a duty, the neglect of which is a con- 
tinual shock to the noblest feelings of our nature, a stain upon the 
character of the nation, and an outrage on the general sentiments 
of mankind.! 

* Vol. V. pp. 771, 772. 

[t I am happy to record here an act of a private individual, which to the 
limited extent of his power, has relieved the nakedness of the national neglect 
on this subject. Thus we often see some hnmble plant spreading its fair leaves 
and sweet blossoms over the desolation made by the grand convulsions of 
nature. 

Those who have the care of Washington's remains have lately placed 



1 



175 

The summary I have given you, of Gen. Lee's political life, as 
far as it goes, furnishes evidence of virtue, ability, and patriotism, 
unalloyed by selfish, or sinister designs. The abatements to which 
they may be thought obnoxious, are those simply of honest error of 
opinion, without the slightest taint of corruption. 1 allude to his 
support of the alien and sedition laws, in the Virginia assembly, 
and to his vote for Burr, instead of Jefferson, as President. 

As it cannot be denied, that a nation, when engaged in hostilities 
or preparing for war, has a right to expel from its territory, alien 
enemies, it must be admitted that the only charge against Gen. Lee 
on this head, arises out of the alleged unconstitutionality of the 
particular law in question. This principle was enforced, and to 
the satisfaction of a large portion of the public, established by the 
ingenious logic of Mr. Madison's famous report. But Gen. Lee 
was one among many, whom it failed to convince. 

With regard to the sedition law, inasmuch as it expressly secured 
to persons arraigned under its provisions, the right of justifying 
themselves by proving the truth of their allegations, there was 
neither tyranny nor injustice in its spirit. Its remote consequences. 
tending to restrain the liberty of the press, rendered it inexpedient 
in point of policy; and Mr. Madison demonstrated by a chain ot 
fine and admirable reasoning, that it involved the exercise of a 
power which was not fairly deducible from the Constitution. Gen. 
Lee took a different view of the subject, and supported it, I have 
understood, in a strain of captivating eUxiuence, by clear and for- 
cible arguments. His opinions, though rejected by a majority of 
the assembly to which they were submitted, and since discounte- 
nanced by a majority of the people, had the concurrence of the 
Congress of the United States, of the federal judiciary, and of the 
Legislatures of several of the States. It should also be taken into 



them in a beautiful marble sarcophagus. The maker of it, Mr. John Struthers 
of Philadelphia, has raised himself from the occupation of a mechanic to the 
station of an artist. Yet this meritorious citizen, though of that division ol' 
the working classes, which Mr. Jefferson considers (see Tucker, Vol. I. p. 
184,) "the panders of vice, and the instruments by which the liberties of a 
country are generally overturned" — yes, he of this abused ''class of artificers," 
entreated so earnestly, that this favourite work of his hands might be received 
as a free oifering of his gratitude to the memory of the father of his country, 
that he overcame the sincere desire of the executors to reward him for it. 
They must have felt, too, that the feelings of this excellent man were an 
appropriate consecration of the marble, which was to hold those remains, 
which are consecrated by like affections in ihe hearts of his countrymen. 
I am told that it is admirable as a work of art; but were it worthy the chisel 
of Canova, that would be but dust in the balance when weighing the merit of 
its maker. Who does not envy him ihe emotions of those silent hours in 
which he was shaping that marble, whose fair proportions, as they rose under 
his hand, animated his pious hopes that they might be deemed worthy to 
enclose the noblest remains of mortalityl 

A sarcophagus of equal beauty and by the same noble artist encloses the 
remains of Mrs. Washington.] 



176 

consideration, that in consequence of the excesses to which the 
Democratic Societies, and other partisans of France, had carried 
their proceedings, and the formidable example of their ett'ect in ex- 
citing the Western insurrection, the Government was placed under 
a sort of necessity of guarding strictly against similar atrocities at 
the time these laws were passed: when, owing to the enmity and 
insolence of the French Directory, and the strength of the French 
party in tiie United States, a defensive war with France was looked 
upon as ceitain, and a want of concert at home in maintaining it, 
was apprehended. 

With respect to Gen, Lee's voting for Burr, there are several 
grounds of extenuation, if not of complete justification. At that 
time the responsibility of the Representative to his constituency 
was not so generally admitted, or so strictly enforced, as it is at 
present. The theory of Burke, so eloquently propounded to his 
Bristol electors, was the text of our most enlightened politicians, 
and was thought particularly applicable to the question then before 
the House of Representatives. To this consideration is to be added, 
the moral repugnance which Gen. Lee's knowledge of Mr. Jeffer- 
son's practices must have created. Could he as a good citizen, or 
a faithful representative, assist in placing at the head of the nation, 
an individual whom he firmly believed to be untrue in his private, 
and unprincipled in his public character.'' However this question 
may be answered, it can impugn neither the personal nor the 
political honour of Gen. Lee.* 

[* The alien and sedition laws have been generally regarded as the highest 
among the crimes of the federal rule. From one end of the Union to the 
other those acts have swelled the longest and the harshest howl of party objur- 
gation. But at length it appears, if we may trust the biographer of Mr. Jef- 
ferson, (him, to whom the whole magazine of weapons for party purposes, 
which the long life and remarkable diligence of the sage of Monticello col- 
lected,) if we may trust him, thus armed, and backed by the learning and 
library of the University, the poor alien law has been most unjustly belabour- 
ed all this while; or, at least, "was condemned by most Americans, like the 
stork in the fable, for the society in which it was found, and for the sake of 
soothing the great mass of foreigners, who were not yet naturalized, the 
greater part of whom, particularly the Irish and French, were attached to the 
republican party." (Vol. II. p. 46.) 

But ought not those who acknowledge a blindness of .such grossness aad 
long continuance, to distrust somewhat their newly restored vision, and, at 
any rale, to confess that the federalists fell into no greater error in not recog- 
nising the crane, than their opponents did in mistaking the stork. The friends 
of truth, however, may congratulate them.';elves that half the error upon this 
subject seems in a fair way of being entirely exploded, and I cite the follow- 
ing illustrious authorities in favour of both those laws, not to control opinion 
in regard to them, but to conduce to its impartial formation. 

Mr. Spotswood, a relation, I think, of Gen. Washington, had enclosed him 
a publication, which the writer said had thoroughly convinced him of the 
unconstitutionality of the alien and sedition laws. From the General's reply 
I extract the following paragraph: 

"But I will take the liberty of advising such as are not "thoroughly con- 
vinced," and whose minds are yet open to conviction, to read the pieces and 



177 

Upon the whole comparison therefore, between Mr. Jefferson and 
Gen. Lee as public servants, upon a scale of what may be termed 



hear the arguments, which have been advanced in favour of, as well as those 
against, the constitutionality and expediency of those laws, before they decide; 
and consider to what lengths a certain description of men in our countrvhave 
already driven, and seem resolved lo drive matters, and then ask themselves 
if it is not time, and expedient, to resort to protecting laws against aliens (for 
citizens you certainly know are not aflected by that law,) who acknowledge 
no allegiance to this country, and in many instances are sent among us, as 
there is the best circumstantial evidence to prove, for the express purpose 
of poisoning the minds of our people, and sowing dissensions among them, in 
order to alienate their affections from the government of their choice, thereby 
endeavouring to dissolve the Union, and of course the fair and happy pros- 
pects which were unfolding to our view from the revolution." Writings of 
Washington, Vol. XI. p. 34.5. 

At page 386 of the same volume, there is a letter from the same high 
source to the late Judge Washington, informing him that he had sent to Gen. 
Marrshall "the charge of Judge Addison on the liberty of speech and the press, 
and in justification of the sedition and alien laws," and requested the General 
after he had read it to give it to Mr. Washinsfton, &c. The letter continues: 

"But I do not believe, that any thing contained in it, in Evans's pamphlet, or 
in any other writing, will produce the least change in the conduct of the 
leaders of opposition to the measures of the general government. They have 
points to carry, from which no reasoning, no inconsistency of conduct, no 
absurdity can div^ert them. If, however, such writings should produce con- 
viction in the minds of those who have hitherto placed faith in their asser- 
tions, it Mall be a fortunate event for this country." 

This letter was dated 31st December, 1798, and we see in it and the 
former plainly enough what was Washington's opinion of the crisis which 
had been brought on by the disorganizing measures of France, and the faction 
which aided them in this country, and of the steps which our government had 
taken to weather the storm. As further testimony of the designs which were 
then in progress against the peace of our country and the stability of the go- 
vernment. I refer the reader to a letter from Gouverneur Morris to M. Necker, 
dated Altona, September 17th, 1798. It will there be seen that the writer 
speaks to his distinguished correspondent of the designs of France as a thing 
well known. He says, "If France decides only to recognise in our country 
the government of the United States, all that remains will be easily arranged. 
But if she persists in her disposition to overthrow our government, in order to 
gratify the ambition of intriguing persons among us, it will be impossible to 
make peace." 

Indeed, Mr. Jefferson's own Anas (see the entry of March 27th, 1800,) 
furnish evidence of this French conspiracy, and Fauchet's intercepted 
despatches had averred long before that the command of a few thousands 
would have made it optional with France whether or not there should be a 
civil war here; and that "the consciences of the pretended patriots of this 
country had already their prices." 

Patrick Henry's testimony as to the danger which threatened "the great 
pillars of all government and of social life" itself; and that "every thing that 
ought to be dear to man was covertly but successfully assailed," has been 
already cited. (See introduction to this work.) And the earnestness of Mr. 
Henry's belief upon this subject is proved by his having come forward to 
rescue his country, and to support his old opponents, the federalists. 

The authorities here collected are suihcient to prove to every mind capable 
of appreciating testimony, how pregnant was the crisis which the alien and 
sedition laws M^ere enacted to meet, and that they were approved by the best 
hearts and wisest heads of the land. As to their character as high-handed 



178 

clear and resulting merit, graduated by reference to acknowledged 
facts and obvious justice, the least that can be admitted is, that 

measures, and as trenching upon the constitution, they were no more in those 
respects to the law establishing the embargo "than I to Hercules." 

For the preposterous purpose of protecting our commerce by destroying it, 
and of starving the millions of Europe by withholding the mite of our supplies, 
our citizens were subjected, by this portentous law, to search of their houses 
and seizure of their effects upon bare suspicion, unsupported by oath or affir- 
mation — the president was authorized to give private instructions to his 
minions of the custom-houses, which should have the effect of statutes — and 
to secure the execution of these tyrannical powers, the constitution was further 
violated, by the eleventh section of this tremendous law, which, depriving the 
states of the rights reserved to them as to the appointment of the officers of 
their militia, placed the whole military and naval power of the country under 
the immediate command of the president, or any person by him empovjcred for 
the purpose. 

The ruin, the distress, the despair which pervaded the whole seaboard 
Under the operation of this law, is well known. But what was its operation 
in the countries against which it was designed to actl Gen. Armstrong 
writes to Mr. Madison from France, August 30, 1808 — "We have somewhat 
overrated our means of coercion. Here the embargo is not felt, and in Eng- 
land (in the midst of the more recent events of the day,) it is forgotten." And 
by a letter from Mr.Pinckney, dated January 26th, it appeared that the British 
minister received the news of our embargo with great satisfaction. 

It is perfectly in keeping with such blind legislation, that this act, novel as 
it was in our code, and fraught as it necessarily was with the loss of so great 
an amount of property, should have been forced through the house in four 
hours, and that even in the senate the most earnest entreaties for time for 
reflection and discussion, though made by men of the greatest dignity both for 
their characters and services, should have been drowned in the clamours of 
the minions of the executive. Well might Mr. Jefferson, when age was im- 
pairing his memory, and leaving in it rather the substance than the names of 
things, write of this period as of a "war then going on," as he did to Mr. Giles 
December 25th, 1825. For a war was then waged by the majority against 
the minority, and against those guards of the constitution formed for the pro- 
tection of a minority. I cannot conclude this note without expressing my 
occasional distrust of the authorities upon which I have been obliged to rely 
for some of its facts. The best to which I have been able to refer upon this 
embargo law is the "Memoirs of Jefferson," before cited. See Vol. 11. p. 
338, et seq. 

But the author of this work, whoever he may have been, was doubtless 
competent to speak of the motives which divided the federal party in their 
choice between Jefferson and Burr, in the contest of these gentlemen for the 
presidency. He says, (Vol. II. p. 88,) "The wishes and hopes of the fede- 
ralists now rested on a sad choice between two evils," and that in "every 
knotty emergency" that party generally looked to Hamilton for guidance — 
That "he erroneously imagined that the timid cunning of Mr. Jefferson would 
be less dangerous to the country than the bad principles, joined to the intrepid 
spirit of Burr, and that there was less to be feared from the crawling hypo- 
crisy of the one than from the bold and unprincipled ambition of the other" — 
That many of the federalists adopted these views — and thus, "for once, a per- 
son owed his election to the 'chief magistracy of a great country, to his charac- 
ter for timid meanness and incapacity." 

Gen. Lee, however, differed with those who adopted these views, and had 
been too long acquainted with Mr. Jeflerson's insincerity to confide in these 
professions, which the federalists, at least, believed he made, and by that 
belief were induced, at last, to join in electing him. The event proved that in 
the latter respect, at any rate, he was not mistaken. For Mr. Jeflerson acted 



179 

Gen. Lee, although his career was limited, and his opportunities 
circumscribed, was (not to speak of the purity and elevation of his 
motives,) in regard to the effects of his conduct, a more useful citi-t 
zen than Mr. Jefferson. This result will appear not less striking 
than true, when it is remembered, that Mr. Jefferson, who has been 
already traced through every variety of contradiction in principle, 
every shade of confusion as to example, and every degree of mis- 
representation of character, and misstatement of fact, closed the 
series of slanders which gave occasion to these remarks, by affirm- 
ing, that Gen. Lee, "ought indeed to have been of more truth, or 
less trusted by his country."* 

If we follow these men into retirement and see how they respec- 
tively employed the freedom of leisure, or supported the pressure 
of misfortune, there will be found something to blame and to praise 
in both. Gen. Lee entered into a course of sanguine and visionary 
speculations, endeavouring to acquire wealth, not by rational and 
productive industry, but by a combination of bargains which could 
scarcely benefit one party without injury to the other, and which 
were often mutually detrimental. 

To the task of extending and diversifying these transactions so 
as to make the success of one compensate if possible for the failure 
of others, he devoted no little amount of misapplied talent and ac- 
tivity; as in bearing up against the weight of distress and ruin 
which they finally entailed, he wasted a degree of fortitude which, 
however inglorious the struggle, could not be witnessed without 
admiration. 

The retirement of Mr. Jefferson, as his writings show, was 



upon the understanding which it was supposed he had entered into with the 
federal leaders, and in forming which he played his part so well, that he even 
deceived the sagacity of Gouverneur Morris, no longer than while delivering 
his inaugural address. This fair production does, indeed, seem to have felt a 
federal influence, and to prove that its author had not wholly forgot the inspi- 
ration which directed his best labours during the revolution and in the cabinet 
of Washington. There he speaks as a president of the United States ought 
to do, of "that harmony and affection vrithout tcMch liberty and even life itself 
are but dreary things'' — of that "political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and 
capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions,'" as that which, under the name of 
religion, had so long afflicted the world— and of the source of those "throes 
and convulsions" whose billows reached "even this distant and peaceful 
shore," and under the agitations of which we had "called by different names 
brethren of the same principles,'''' whom he pronounces to be "all republicans all 
federalist's." But what end did these smooth professions serve, beyond the 
delusion of a dayl thereby, alas' to condemn their author's actions out of his 
own mouth, and to afford a lamentable contrast to the effusions of his latter 
days, when he gave glory to Governor Gerry "for the rasping with which he 
rubbed doum his herd of traitors." Verily, it will not be with the diffusion of 
historical light that Gen. Lee's condemnation will increa.se for preferring 
even Burr to Jefferson, for a president of the United States.] 

[* So late as September, 1812, the venerable Mr. Jay speaks of him in a 
letter to a brother of Gen. Lee, as one "whose claims to public gratitude have 
so long and so justly been acknowledged throughout the United States.''] 



180 

chiefly devoted to fabricating and diffusing calumnies against the 
greatest benefactors of his country, and in endeavouring to create 
and confirm a meretricious estimate of his own merit and fame. 
In this occupation, pursuing ignoble purposes by unworthy means, 
he succeeded in planting the generous soil of the public mind with 
delusions rank and noxious, which could hardly ever have been 
eradicated but for the fortunate publication of his "Writings." 
This has admitted the public into the secrets of h\?, perpetual motion, 
and exposed the masks and trickery by which their admiration was 
suborned and their judgment imposed upon. The most surprising 
scenes in the solemn and protracted farce are those in which the 
dupery practised on old Mr. Adams, is exhibited. He appears on 
the philosophic theatre of Monticello as Mr. Jefferson's Justice 
Shallow, and consents for a little flattering cajoUery about their 
early association and exploits^ for the crumbs of praise left after 
Mr. Jefferson's banquet; to enter into a coalition* against the fame 
of his former 'friends, not excepting his great predecessor; (Vol. 
IV. p. 357,) sacrificing his own opinions and affections on the altar 
of Mr. Jefferson's vanity, for the poor reward of being allowed to 
snuff" the impurity of this unhallowed incense. To the honour of 
Mrs. Adams, it is to be observed that her heart was too good and 
her judgment too penetrating, to be ensnared by the blandishments, 
of which her husband in his old age, was the venerable but unre- 
spected victim. (Vol. IV. p. 158.) 

As a noble counterpoise to these malepractices, Mr. Jefferson is 
entitled to the credit of having created by an honourable zeal for 
learning, the University of Virginia; of having patronised it against 
much discouragement, and brought it into successful operation by 
his own enthusiasm and perseverance. This is a monument to his 
fame as a citizen, of fair proportion and of solid structure, which 
as it is likely to counteract their effects, not even his demerits as a 
statesman and a man, will suffice to undermine. 

But if in the hours of leisure, Mr. Jefferson be admitted to have 
stood above Gen. Lee, in the season of adversity we shall find that 
he sunk far below him. They both died after being in circumstances 
of insolvency. Mr. Jefferson was allowed to retain and enjoy his 
property, was left in possession of his personal liberty and habitual 
comforts. Thus indulged, he busied his old age in humiliating 
efforts to excite public sympathy and to sell his estate for more 
than its value by offering temptations to the compassion rather than 
to the interest of his fellow-citizens, in the shape of a lottery. His 
claim to this gambling and invidious privilege, which if granted to 
him could not justly have been refused to others, he appears to have 
supported by an array of his public services, which if not mercenary 
was certainly not modest. (Vol. IV, pp. 434, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.) 

Gen. Lee was cast into a loathsome jail, and subjected to the 

* An hereditary habit it would appear of the House of Braintree. 



181 

combined persecution of political rancour, personal cupidity, and 
vulgar malice. Yet he never for a moment lost the dignity of his 
deportment, or the composure of his mind, never once descended 
to complaint or stooped to importunity — to the chicanery of angling 
for lotteries, or to the littleness of attempting to retrieve his private 
fortune by an array of his public services. The pain of imprison- 
ment he generously soothed by celebrating the exploits of his great 
commanders, Washington and Greene; by saving from oblivion the 
names and actions of his companions in arms, and by recording for 
the instruction of future ages, the principal events of his own life. 
While he dwelt on these grateful and heroic themes, w^hich smoothed 
the brow of misfortune, not an unfair opinion or ungenerous senti- 
ment escaped him. His book is stained with no prevarications or 
calumnies, no evasions or contradictions — no slanders of rivals or 
of foes, and (though it contains political reflections) there is not to 
be found in it a single expression disrespectful to the laws of his 
country, detrimental to the union of the States, or injurious to the 
rights or liberties of the citizen. 

Having thus by Mr. Jefferson's own testimony, justified the in- 
telligence communicated by Gen. liCe to Gen. Washington; having 
exposed, in a careful analysis, the slander by which Mr. Jefferson's 
false contradiction of that intelligence was accompanied; and hav- 
ing shown by a detection of repeated inconsistencies, numerous 
prevarications, and glaring contradictions, that his imputations and 
assertions, when of a complexion to injure his adversaries or to 
advantage himself, are not entitled to the slightest credit,' I shall 
complete the task imposed upon me by demonstrating that Mr. 
Jeff'erson's abuse of Gen. Lee, so far from imprinting a stain on the 
memory of the latter, ought in justice to be taken as a flattering 
evidence of his merit. 

This part of my design is not, as you may at first be inclined to 
think, a work of supererogation. For no matter how unfounded 
or unjust this abuse may now appear, there is that in the nature of 
"calumny, which causes a blemish to be left by the very process 
which obliterates its stain. Individuals, will probably be heard to 
say — / see dearly that Gen. Lee was fully justified in making the 
communications he did make to Gen. fVashington. J am satisfied 
that Mr. Jefferson's conduct loas unjust, ungrateful, and perfidious. 
It is evident that he frequently overstepped the limits of fair opposi- 
tion in his political warfare — that he deserted the principles of 
honour, and was not regulated by the dictates of truth. But he 
ivas a good judge of m.ankind; and it is difficult to believe that he 
could have felt such detestation of Gen. Lee, as his letter to Gen. 
Washington of the I9th of June, 1796, expresses, without some 
reason for it. 

To counteract the force of this inference, and to prove that the 
mark left" by Mr. Jefferson's vilification on the character of Gen. 
Lee, instead of being a sign of disgrace, is really a stamp of honour, 
9r, 



182 

the observations contained in the succeeding letters it is hoped will 
suflBce. In laying them before you I shall not entrench myself 
behind the trite but just conclusion, that if praise from a friend is 
not always a compliment, censure from a foe is often an encomium. 
I shall rather rely on the powerful analogy resulting in Gen. Lee's 
favour from the fact, that he is placed by Mr. Jefferson's hostility 
and defamation in the same category with Washington, Hamilton, 
Knox, Jay, Richard Henry Lee, Marshall, and the other great 
patriots of that Roman band who gained for our country indepen- 
dence and freedom. And I shall contend, that if nothing else had 
been done to invalidate his censure and repel his virulence, the 
inference from this circumstance alone, in regard to the character 
of Gen. Lee and the credit of Mr. Jefferson would be enough, in 
the contemplation of all unprejudiced minds, to obscure with shades 
of dishonour the name of the one, and to irradiate with reflections 
of glory the memory of the other. 



LETTER XIIL 

GENERAL WASHINGTON. 

This illustrious man, without advantages from birth, wealth, w 
education, left, for the admiration of posterity, a character, which 
is acknowledged by the world to place him foremost in the first 
class of greatness — 'princeps fundatorum imperiorum.'* He was 
not admirable for genius, eminent for learning, distinguished for 
eloquence, or remarkable for address. Judgment, integrity, forti- 
tude, and benevolence, constituted and completed his character; 
exalting it to perfect magnanimity and the highest wisdom. A 
simple and sublime pre-eminence that made men of genius, learn- 
ing, eloquence, and address, his inferiors and instruments. His 
objects were always noble, his means uniformly justifiable, and his 
measures the result of deep reflection; so that although his enter- 
prises were occasionally unsuccessful, they never failed to be glo- 
rious. He came into life just in season to achieve the independence 
and establish the freedom of his country, and was withdrawn to a 
higher existence as soon as the growing strength of our institutions 

* Lord Bacon, on Honour and Reputation. 



183 

no longer required his support. His career in this respect resem- 
bling the great river of the Alps, which, descending from snow- 
crowned summits, pours a fuller current through the plains of Italy 
when thej thirst and languish under summer suns. In short, of 
this Alfred of the western world, it may be said with truth, that 
his destiny and principles so happily concurred, that he was not 
only the most meritorious, but the most useful patriot who ever 
lived. 

The impression conveyed by Mr. Jefferson's "Writings" in re- 
gard of the character of this champion of liberty, is twofold. First, 
that he was an honest man, and a sincere patriot, but that front 
deficient penetration, apathy of political sentiment, and facility of 
disposition, he was the instrument of a party who were intent on 
converting our republic into a monarchy; second, that his mind 
was vigorous and comprehensive, but that his political principles 
were depraved, that his temper was suspicious, his opinions were 
monarchical, and that he was the conscious and willing patron of a 
criminal design against public liberty. 

Most of these features, not only thus strikingly contrasted, but 
often blended and confused, you may recognise in the citations 
already made from Mr. Jefferson's correspondence.* But for a 
condensed view of the dark as well as the dull shades thus thrown 
on the character of Washington, the following passages appear to 
be particularly apposite. (Vol. IV. pp. 184, 5.) To Mr. Mellish: 
— "At the head of this minority is what is called the Essex junto 
of Massachusetts. But the majority of these leaders do not aim at 
separation. In this they adhere to the known principles of Gen. 
Hamilton, never under any views to break the Union. Anglomany, 
monarchy, and separation then, are the principles of the Essex 
federalists; anglomany and monarchy those of the Hamiltonians." 
"Gen. Washington has asseverated to me a thousand times his de- 
termination that the existing government should have a fair trial, 
and that in support of it he would spend the last drop of his blood. 
He did this the more repeatedly because he knew Gen. Hamilton's 
political bias, and my apprehensions from it." (P. 327.) To Dr. 
Jones: — "I do believe Gen. Washington had not a firm confidence 
in the durability of our government. He was naturally distrustful 
of men, and inclined to gloomy apprehensions; and I was ever per- 
suaded that a belief that we must at length end in something like 
the British constitution, had some weight in his adoption of the 
ceremonies of levees, birth-days, pompous meetings with Congress, 
and other forms of the same character, calculated to prepare us 
gradually for a change which he believed possible, and to let it 
come on with as little shock as might be to the public mind." 
(pp. 450, 51.) In the Anas: — "Here then was the real ground of 

♦ They may be readily collected from the following pages: — Vol. III. pp. 
307, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 27," 28, 35, 37, 49, 53, 57, and 58. 



184 

the opposition that was made to the course of administration. Its 
object was to preserve the legislature pure and independent of the 
Executive, to restrain the administration to republican forms and 
principles, and not permit the constitution to be warped in practice 
into all the principles and pollutions of their favourite British model. 
Nor was this an opposition to Gen. Washington. He was true to 
the republican charge confided to him, and has solemnly and re- 
peatedly protested to me that he would lose the last drop of his 
blood in support of it; and he did this the oftener and with the more 
earnestness, because he knew my suspicions of Hamilton's designs 
against it, and wished to quiet them. For he was not aware of the 
drift or of the effects of Hamilton's schemes. Unversed in financial 
projects and calculations and budgets, his approbation of them was 
bottomed on his confidence in the man. But Hamilton was not 
only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption." 
"He was for an hereditary King, with a House of Lords and Com- 
mons corrupted to his will, and standing between him and the peo- 
ple." 

To these passages I shall add an extract of a letter found in Mr. 
Jefferson's third volume (p. 393,) to Col. Taylor. "But our pre- 
sent situation is not a natural one. The republicans through every 
part of the Union say, that it was the irresistible influence and 
popularity of Gen. Washington played off" by the cunning of Hamil- 
ton, which turned the government over to anti-republican hands, 
or turned the republicans chosen by the people into anti-republicans. 
He delivered it over to his successor in this state." 

The date of this letter to Col. Taylor is June, 1798; of the state- 
ment to Mr. Mellish, January, 1813; of that to Dr. Jones, January, 
1814; and of the assertions in the Anas, February, 1818; compre- 
hending in their extremes the space of twenty years. That they 
abound in inconsistencies and exhibit contradictions, cannot at 
this stage of the examination excite surprise in the minds of Mr. 
Jefferson's enemies or friends. These, however they may differ on 
other points, must agree on this, that it is impossible to believe 
both sets of his assertions, one describing Gen. Washington as the 
weak and subservient instrument of Hamilton, the other as bis 
sagacious patron or criminal accomplice. 

In reference to the latter imputation it is averred that the design 
or "drift" of Hamilton's schemes, was by corrupting the legislature 
to warp the government of the United States "into a monarchy bot- 
tomed on corruption;" that Gen. Washington knew of Hamilton's 
political "bias" or design and knew also Mr. Jefferson's suspicions 
of it; and that possessing this knowledge he continued his confi- 
dence in Hamilton, and endeavoured to quiet Mr. Jefferson's sus- 
picions by protesting over and over again, that he would shed the 
last drop of his blood in opposing this monarchical scheme, while at 
the same time he was preparing the public mind for receiving the 
yoke of a monarchy, with the least possible shock or resistance. 



185 

This is the substance and almost the letter of" Mr. Jett'ersoti's de- 
liberate and recorded affirmations; and it is clear that if he is en- 
titled to credit, Gen. Washington, whose fame as a patriot is the 
pride and glory of his country, was not less a traitor than Arnold, 
and was a far greater criminal than Burr. 

If a President of the United States ^not^s (letter to Mr. Mellish, 
Vol. IV. p. 185,) that the Secretary of the Treasury is earnestly 
endeavouring, by corrupting the legislature, to change our govern- 
ment into a monarchy; i^Anas, Vol. IV. pp. 446-7,) if he also knows 
that the Secretary of State suspects and reprobates this scheme, 
and yet endeavours by protesting his own determination to main- 
tain the republic, to quiet these suspicions of the Secretary of State 
(letters to Mr. Mellish and Dr. Jones,) and Anas, (Vol. IV. p. 450,) 
while at the same time he continues his confidence in the Secretary 
of the Treasury [Anas, 450-51,) and conspires to bring about the 
success of his schemes by preparing the public mind for submission 
to a monarchy; (letter to Dr. Jones) if I say with this knowledge, 
the President of the United States pursues this conduct, it matters 
not whether his name be Washington or Jackson, Jefferson or 
Madison, whether he be "a military chieftain" or "a mountain phi- 
losopher," he commits the blackest treason, incurs the deepest dis- 
grace, and is liable to the extremest punishment. It may be worth 
observing that inasmuch as the levees, and other "forms of the British 
government" were adopted by Gen. Washington previously to the 
production of Hamilton's plan of finance, the idolaters of Mr. Jef- 
ferson are bound to believe that Gen. Washington was not only the 
patron, but the author of the design imputed to Hamilton, of con- 
verting the republican government of the United States into a mo- 
narchy. 

If the atrocity of this flagrant slander could admit of aggravation, 
it might be derived from the sportive and sacrilegious temper in 
which Mr. Jefferson tosses the dear-bought and venerated fame of 
Washington to any whale that happened for the moment to be 
spouting on the surface of the political ocean. On one occasion he 
asserts that Gen. Washington was aware of Hamilton's scheme, at 
another that he was ignorant of it. At one moment he declares 
that Gen. Washington was "true to the republican charge confided 
to him," was resolved to "shed the last drop of his blood" in per- 
petuating our republic; at the next, that he was taking measures to 
prepare .the people for quiet submission to a monarchy. To Mr. 
Van Buren he owns, as you no doubt remember, that in March, 
1797, he had a warm and affectionate parting with Gen. Washing- 
ton, while he assures Dr. Jones, (Vol. IV. p. 237,) that he never 
saw Gen. Washington after his own retirement from the cabinet, in 
December, 1793; adding in the former case, that there never was 
the least interruption of their friendship; in the latter, and more 
particularly in the introduction to the Anas, (Vol. IV. p. 453,) that 



186 

Gen. Washington, towards the close of his life becsime personalty 
alienated from him. 

One of his assertions is so often repeated, that it is a little sur- 
prising to find such absolute uniformity in a fiction so obvious. 
He says, and repeats the assertion, that Gen. Washington asseve- 
rated to him a thousand times that he would "spend" or "shed" 
the last drop of his blood in support of our republic. Now, inde- 
pendently of the incongruity of this anecdote, with the well known 
character of Washington — with his dignity, prudence, and modesty, 
with his infinite elevation above the vanity and egotism of a life and 
fortune-man, we have the best testimony which Mr. Jefferson's 
statements afford, that this reiterated assertion is false. 

It cannot be necessary to remark that the best testimony to be 
collected from Mr. Jefferson's writings, in regard to the character 
of Gen. Washington and his political friends, is circumstantial. 
His memoranda of conversations with the President are introduced 
by the most careful protestation of their fidelity and correctness. 
(Vol. IV. beginning of the Anas.) They extend in time from 
March, 1791, to December, 1793; that is, more than two years and 
a half — and they include upwards of fifty different notices. In 
these, Mr. Jefferson's suspicions of monarchical designs are three 
times introduced, (Vol. IV. pp. 470-85 and 93,) but on neither of 
these occasions, nor on any other, does Gen. Washington make 
use of the expressions which Mr. Jefferson affirms he employed on 
all occasions. 

In the first of these conversations, although Mr. Jefferson assured 
Gen. Washington that " the Secretary of the Treasury, Gen. 
Schuyler, his father-in-law, and a numerous sect, had monarchy 
in contemplation," the General, so far from promising to "shed 
the last drop of his blood," in maintaining the republic, ridicules 
the idea of such a charge against Hamilton and his party, and 
makes no other observation in regard to it than that "he did not 
believe there were ten men in the United States whose opinions 
were worth attention, who entertained such a thought;" evidently 
excluding Hamilton from that small number, by proposing to act 
as mediator in bringing; about a reconciliation between him and 
Mr. Jefferson of their political and personal difference. 

On the second occasion, (p. 485,) in alluding to this imputed 
design. Gen. Washington said — "if any body wanted to change 
our government into a monarchy, he was sure it was only a few 
individuals, and that no man in the United States would set his 
face against it more than himself." Now this is quite a different 
expression both in words and substance from the bloody slang of 
Mr. Jefferson's invention. Gen. Washington could not but know 
that all who suspected there was a design of introducing a monarchy 
would be inclined to look upon him as the future monarch; and 
while he was not so boastful or loose as to talk of spending or 
shedding his blood, he was prudent enough to declare distinctly 



187 

that he would be no party to such a project. In this there was 
neither unseemly vehemence, vanity, nor egotism, nor the least 
departure from "the laws of his character." 

On the third occasion, (p. 493,) he uses the same language, and 
adds, that "for any set of men to entertain the idea of establishing 
a monarchy in the United States," would be "proof of their in- 
sanity" — intimating that as the design would be desperate, the 
suspicion of it was absurd. 

It is impossible, then, to believe, that out of respect for a suspi- 
cion so ridiculous, and in consideration of a project so contemptible. 
Gen. Washington would have poured forth foaming protestations 
of his resolution to shed the last drop of his blood in support of the 
Republic! 

To acquire a more complete conception of these misstatements 
and contradictions, it will be necessary for you to bear in mind, 
that Mr. Jefferson, in making them, assumed the attitude of a 
witness, and placed his correspondents in the position of compara- 
tive strangers. He speaks in a tone of historical dictation and 
from professed personal knowledge, of facts, that could not have 
been known to the individuals in question, and adapts to his facts, 
conclusions which neither of his correspondents, and but very few 
even of his earlier contemporaries, could have had the means of 
scrutinizing by comparison with observations of their own. In 
writing these conflicting aspersions, he must be considered as saying 
to his correspondents, and in leaving them for publication, to the 
world — though my portraiture of Gen. Washington may strike you 
with surprise, you are not to doubt its fidelity and exactness, for 
you must remember that I was his prime minister for more than 
four years, and had, during that time, "daily, confidential, and 
cordial intercourse with him,^^ (Vol. IV. p. 237,) on subjects cal- 
culated to display the obvious, and to revecd the latent, principles 
of his character. You must take into account, that I studied his 
disposition through an acquaintance of near thirty years, (Ibid.) in 
the legislature of Virginia, and in the Congress of the United States; 
in the intimacy of frequent correspondence, as well as in the fellow- 
ship of Cabinet labours. If you have any confidence then in my 
judgment, you must reject your own crude impressions, and adopt 
my conclusions, grounded on the long, intimate, ofjicial, and fami- 
liar acquaintance with Gen. Washington, which it was my peculiar 
advantage to enjoy. 

This is the imposing and oracular tone in which Mr. JeiFerson 
disseminates the "matter deep and dangerous," which I have here 
disentangled from the complexity of less glaring and more timid 
slanders. To measure the distance of its departure from truth, 
would be as difficult as to put a girdle round about the earth. 

But the degree of indignation which it would have excited in the 
noble breast of Washington may be conceived, not only from the 
force and purity of his character, but from expressions found in a 



188 

letter of his, to Mr. Jay, written about the time the insufficiency 
of the old confederation was threatening to produce distractions 
among the States, and the downfall of republican government. 
''What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing! 
I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical 
form of government without horror. From thinking, proceeds 
speaking, then to acting is often but a single step. But how irre- 
vocable and tremendous! What a triumph for our enemies to 
verify their predictions! What a triumph for the advocates of 
despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, 
and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely 
ideal and fallacious. Would to God, that wise measures may be 
taken in time, to avert the consequences we have too much reason 
to apprehend."* Wise measures were taken in time, and by no 
men more actively than by Jay and Hamilton. 

That this indignation would not have been appeased, by the 
artful or fearful qualifications with which Mr. Jefferson endeavoured 
occasionally to conceal his calumnies — such as, that Gen. Wash- 
ington was "the only honest man who assented to Jay's treaty," 
that he was "played off" by the cunning of Hamilton," and that the 
odious measures of his government were "imputable not to him, 
but to his counsellors," may be inferred from remarks ascribed to 
him by Mr. Jefferson himself, (Vol. IV. pp. 467, 468.) "The 
President said that the pieces lately published, and particularly in 
Freneau's paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition to 
the Government," — "He considered those papers as attacking him 
directly, for he must be a fool indeed to swallow the little sugar- 
plums here and there thrown out to him. That in condemning the 
administration of the general government, they condemned him, 
for if they thought there were measures pursued contrary to his 
sentiments, they must suppose him too careless to attend to them, 
or too stupid to understand them." 

But it is not improbable that the more incurable proselytes of 
Mr. Jefferson, tenants of the shade of vanity and prejudice, wor- 
shippers of words, who have been attached to the name of Jefferson, 
by motives as liberal, as that which attached moths to his garments, 
may insist that the imbroglio of imputations, qualifications, asser- 
tions, and contradictions, which we have been considering, is not 
a fair exposition of Mr. Jefferson's testimony respecting the charac- 
ter of Gen. Washington; and that an equitable commentator on his 
"Writings," would refer to his famous letter to Dr. Jones, (Vol. 
IV. p. 234,) for a sketch, doing justice at once to the merit of the 
subject, and to the skill of the artist. 

Without perceiving the advantage which this letter is to afford 
Mr. Jefferson's reputation, or the possibility of extricating its 
statements from contradiction, with his assertions made before and 

* Marshall, Vol. V. p. 96 



189 

after it was written, respect for the fanatical despair with which it 
has been, and probably may be lauded by his followers, makes it 
proper to invite your attention to it. It contains an elaborate 
description of Gen. Washington, in terms, though not of just de- 
lineation, yet occasionally of strenuous praise. But if the circum- 
stances under which it was written be considered, it reflects more 
light on the character of Mr. Jefferson than it sheds on that of Gen. 
Washington. 

It is dated the 2nd of January, 1814, and appears to be in answer 
to a letter from Dr. Jones, enclosing for the inspection of Mr. Jef- 
ferson a political essay, which the Doctor had prepared on the rise 
and progress of the federal and democratic parties. Dr. Jones, 
who was a pungent and polished writer, and a gentleman of classi- 
cal taste and erudition, had expressed a fear of encountering as 
many difficulties in endeavouring to carry Gen. Washington safe 
through the denunciations and abuse, which, in conformity with 
Mr. Jefferson's precept and example, it was necessary for his par- 
tisans to heap on the federal party, as beset ^.neas when he bore 
Anchises through Grecian lances and the flames of Troy. That 
he had expressed this apprehension, is evident from the following 
observation in Mr. Jeff'erson's answer. (P. 235.) "You say, that 
in taking Gen. Washington on your shoulders, to bear him harm- 
less through the federal coalition, you encounter a perilous* topic." 
Oppressed by this reasonable apprehension. Dr. Jones implored 
that aid from the god of his idolatry, which in a case of similar 
distress, a divinity had extended to his pious predecessor. To 
satisfy this prayer, Mr. Jefferson's letter was despatched from the 
clouds of that little Olympus, Monticello^ and its import must, no 
doubt, have appeared supernatural to the Doctor, when he dis- 
covered that the machinery interposed for his deliverance, was the 
transformation of Gen. Washington into a democrat — into a beloved 
and loving confederate of Messrs. Jefferson, Giles, and Freneau; 
the very men who had openly reviled, or secretly slandered him- 
self, his friends, and his measures. Beginning his sketch with a 
far-fetched and intruded comparison, in order to divert the Doctor's 
attention from its inconsistency with the current of all his previous 
defamation, he thus addresses himself to the subject. "I think I 
knew Gen. Washington intimately and thoroughly; and were I 
called on to delineate his character, it should be in terms like these. 

"His mind was great and powerful without being of the very first 
order; his penetration strong, though not so acute as that of a 
Newton, Bacon, or Locke; and as far as he saw, no judgment was 
ever sounder. It was slow in operation, being little aided by in- 
vention or imagination, but sure in conclusion. Hence the com- 
mon remark of his officers, of the advantage he derived from coun- 
cils of war, where hearing all suggestions, he selected whatever 
was best; and certainly no general ever planned his battles more 
judiciously. But if deranged during the course of the action, if 
24 



190 

any member of his plan was dislocated by sudden circumstances, 
he was slow in a re-adjustment. The consequence was, he often 
failed in the field, and rarely against an enemy in station, as at 
Boston and York. He was incapable of fear, meeting personal 
dangers with the calmest unconcern. Perhaps the strongest feature 
in his character was prudence, never acting until every circum- 
stance, every consideration, was maturely weighed; refraining if 
he saw a doubt, but, wlien once decided, going through with his 
purpose, whatever obstacles opposed. His integrity was most pure, 
his justice the most inflexible I have ever known, no motives of in- 
terest, or consanguinity, of friendship, or hatred, being able to bias 
his decision. He was, indeed, in every sense of the words, a wise, 
a good, and a great man. His temper was naturally irritable and 
high toned; but reflection and resolution had obtained a firm and 
habitual ascendency over it. If ever, however, it broke its bonds, 
he was most tremendous in his wrath. In his expenses, he was 
honourable but exact; liberal in contributions, to whatever promised 
utility; but frowning and unyielding on all visionary projects, and 
all unworthy calls on his charity. His heart was not warm in its 
affections; but he exactly calculated every man's value, and gave 
him a solid esteem proportioned to it. His person, you know, was 
fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, his deportment easy, 
erect, and noble; the best horseman of his age, and the most grace- 
ful figure that could be seen on horseback." — "On the whole, his 
character was, in the mass, perfect, in nothing bad, in few points 
inditferent; and it may truly be said, that never did nature and 
fortune combine more perfectly to make a man great, and to place 
him in the same Constellation with whatever worthies have merited 
from man an everlasting remembrance. For his was the singular 
destiny and merit of leading the armies of his country successfully 
through an arduous war, for the establishment of its independence? 
of conducting its councils through the birth of a government, new in 
its forms and principles, until it had settled down into a quiet and 
orderly train; and of scrupulously obeying the laws through the 
whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the 
world furnishes no other example. 

"How then can it be perilous for you to take such a man on your 
shoulders?" And he winds up with — ''these are my opinions of 
Gen. Washington, which I would vouch at the judgment-seat of 
God, having been formed on an acquaintance of thirty years." Yet 
of this pure and elevated patriot, with a mind so great and power- 
ful, a penetration so strong, a judgment so lucid, a prudence so 
predominating, of inflexible justice, moderate affections, calculating 
confidences, and long and meritorious services, Mr. Jefferson, after 
thirty years of acquaintance with him, declared, "I wish that his 
honesty and his political errors may not furnish a second occasion 
to exclaim, "curse on his virtues, they have undone his country," — 
and that he had "truckled servilely to England." 



191 

Of Washington, who he confesses, "was in every sense of the 
words, a wise, a good, and a great man;" and who "had the singu- 
lar merit of leading the armies of his country successfully through 
an arduous war, for the establishment of its independence, and of 
conducting its councils through the birth of a government new in 
its forms and principles, until it had settled down into a quiet and 
orderly train," he deprecated to Col. Burr and others, the popu- 
larity and influence. And in regard to his administration, Mr. 
Jefferson assured Col. Taylor, that Washington had delivered the 
government to his successor in an anti-republican state; informed 
Mr. Livingston that it was "republicanism travestiej" and protested 
to Mr. Madison, that he was rejoiced to see that "the birth-night 
balls were not those of the President but the General, and of course 
that time would bring an end of them." 

Now as these statements and opinions never were retracted, it is 
very clear that this tardy and unatoning praise, so far from extract- 
ing the poison, or allaying the acrimony of previous detraction, 
really aggravates them, since it proves that Mr. Jefferson, at the 
very time he was defaming the character of Gen. Washington, was 
perfectly sensible of his eminent services, and his great abilities 
and virtue. 

But, as if to crown this hypocritical panegyric with a suitable 
degree of effrontery, he affirms both in this letter to Dr. Jones, and 
in a subsequent one to Mr. Van Buren, that although he and his 
friends saw clearly the faults and errors of Washington, they took 
into consideration the honesty of the old gentleman's intentions, 
and after they "had tumbled his seducers from their places," 
heartily forgave him. His words to Dr. Jones, are (Vol. IV. p. 
237,) "We were indeed dissatisfied with him as to the British 
treaty. But this was short-lived. We knew his honesty, the wiles 
with which he was encompassed, and that age (Gen. Washington 
was sixty-three only,) had already begun to relax the firmness of 
his purposes," &c. This is, beyond all dispute, the most diabolical 
impudence that ever escaped from the nether to the upper world. 

It is not worth while to point out the intrinsic fallacies of this 
elaborate description of Gen. Washington, or to show that his 
eulogist was so unaccustomed to speak of him in the language of 
praise, that he could not avoid absurdities and error. The com- 
parison with Bacon, Newton, and Locke, is less appropriate than a 
parallel with Paganini would now be; for in his younger days, 
Washington, it is said, played the fiddle, while it is well known 
that he never wrote on metaphysics, astronomy, or the augmenta- 
tion of knowledge, by the employment of inductive reasoning. 
The idea of proving the inflexibility of his justice, by affirming that 
no motives of friendship could influence it, and then declaring that 
"his heart was not warm in its affections," is not a happy one, 
especially as the latter assertion is unfounded. For independently 
of traditional evidence, it is not easy to conceive that Gen. Wash- 



192 

ington, with the "quick sensibility" ascribed to him by Marshall, 
and the "high-toned and irritable temper" which Mr. Jefferson says 
he possessed, could have had a "heart not warm in its aff'ections." 

The natural incompatibility which subsisted between them may 
well have made him appear cold to Mr. Jefferson, but his friend- 
ship for Gen. Lee, in particular, is known to have been exceedingly 
warm; and open to the utmost familiarity. 

So far from being "naturally distrustful of men," as Dr. Jones 
is assured he was, his persevering confidence in Mr. Jefferson him- 
self, even after he had been warned of his treachery,* is proof of 
the contrary, and is in conformity with the acknowledged strength 
and magnanimity of his character. 

The military i-emarks in this sketch are worthy of the great an- 

[* It appears from Gen. Waslilngton's letter to John Nicholas, of March 
8th, 1798, (Vol. XI. p. 227,) how long it was before the former became con- 
vinced of Mr. Jefferson's secret hostility. But from that it appears in a light 
which must pierce even the deepest "shades of vanity and prejudice," that he 
did not go down to the grave in ignorance of his former Secretary and long 
professed friend's insincerity. He says — "Nothing short of the evidence you 
have adduced, corroborative of intimations which I had received long before 
through another channel, could have shaken my belief in the sincerity of a 
friendship, which I had conceived was possessed for me by the person to 
whom you allude, (Mr. Jeiferson.) But attempts to injure those who are 
supposed to stand well in the estimation of the people, and are stumbling 
blocks in the way, by misrepresenting their political tenets, thereby to destroy 
all confidence in them, are among the means by which the government is to 
be assailed, and the constitution destroyed. The conduct of this party is sys- 
tematized; and every thing that is opposed to its execution will be sacriiiced 
without hesitation or remorse, if the end can be answered by it." 

"If the person whom you suspect was really the author of the letter under 
the signature oi John Langhorne, it is not at all surprising to me, that the cor- 
respondence should have ended where it did; for the penetration of that nan 
would have perceived by the first glance at the answer, that nothing was to 
be drawn from that mode of attack. In what form the next insidious attempts 
may appear, remains to be discovered. But as the attempts to explain away 
the constitution, and weaken the government, are now become so open, and 
the desire of placing the afl^airs of this country under the influence and control 
of a foreign nation is so apparent and strong, it is hardly to be expected that a 
resort to covert means to effect these objects will be longer regarded." 

This letter continues through more than another melancholy page, and Mr. 
Jefferson is again alluded to, but yet not named. Were it not for the notes of 
the Editor the uninitiated reader would not know -who was referred to; and 
had it not been for the insidious attempt upon his peace by the communication 
under the fictitious signature of John Langhornc, he would probably have 
been spared the pangs of friendship betrayed and benefits forgot, plainly dis- 
coverable in this letter. For his friends truly wished him that repose to which 
he had earned the best title which had ever been acquired to it, and were 
anxious to shield his noble heart from the wounds of that ingratitude, which 
stalked for awhile in the land, soon to disappear under a burst of execration, 
almost universal. If, therefore, the arts and malignity of Jacobinism had 
been contented to let him rest in the shades to which he had retired — had not 
dogged him to his fireside, and stole upon his presence in the shape of an effu- 
sion of gratitude and love, — it is more than probable that its great American 
high priest would have escaped the infliction of that "lost correspondence," 
the fraudulent removal and destruction of which, clouds his character with 
such painful suspicions.] 



193 

tagonist of Arnold. After asserting tliat no general ever planned 
his battles more judiciously than Washington did, he states as a 
consequence, that he "often failed in the field, and rarely in a 
siege — as at York and Boston!'' His .assertion that Gen. Wash- 
ington "scrupulously obeyed the laws through the whole of his 
career, civil and military" is proof of the 'vein' in which he was 
writing. He knew that in foraging on the farms of New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania for the supply of his army with food, Gen. Washing- 
ton violated the laws of those States providing for the security of 
property. And that in authorizing Gen. Lee, when only twenty- 
three years of age, and in the subordinate rank of Major, to execute 
deserters without a trial, he was violating the laws securing life; 
and that in both cases he acted as Gen. Jackson afterwards acted 
at New Orleans, on the great laws of moral justice and public ne- 
cessity. 

There are circumstances connected with the acknowledgment on 
the part of Dr. Jones, that it was impossible to "bear Gen. Wash- 
ington on his shoulders harmless through the federal coalition" — ir 
other words, that it was impossible to represent the friends anc 
measures of Gen. Washington as corrupt and monarchical, withou: 
censuring him, which fall in with the present occasion and deserve 
to be noticed. In the final struggle of the Federal and Democratic 
parties, the one to gain, and the other to preserve an ascendency in 
the national councils. Gen. Lee, at the instance of Gen. Washing- 
ton and other friends, became a candidate for Congress, in tha; 
district of Virginia which included the birth-place of Gen. Wash- 
ington, and bordered on the one which included his residence. The 
candidate opposed to Gen. Lee, and representing the opinions o" 
the Jefterson party, was this very Dr. Jones. So that these com- 
petitors were known to be the personal and political friends, the one 
of Jefferson and the other of Washington — were looked on as thi 
champions of their adverse wishes and sentiments, and of course 
engaged in a peculiar degree the zeal of their respective parties. 
Dr. Jones, though surpassed by no man in colloquial elegance and 
irony, was no match for his antagonist in popular address and 
public eloquence, and after an animated canvass. Gen. Lee was 
elected by a small majority of votes. This ardent and signal com- 
petition served to heighten the opposition of sentiment between Gen. 
Lee and Dr. Jones; and it may be affirmed in respect of them, that 
though personal friends, there were no two citizens of the United 
States, at that time, whose political opinions and predilections were 
more pointedly antagonists than theirs were. Yet we find them 
concurring on this subject, that Mr. Jefferson had expressed and 
countenanced opinions derogating from the character of Gen. 
Washington, and which if true rendered it impossible to believe 
that he was not inexcusably culpable. 

These derogatory expressions and opinions, running through all 
tlie varieties of slander from prevarications to inconsistencies, from 



194 

inconsistencies to contradictions, need not be recapitulated. The 
observations which have been already applied to them will satisfy 
you of the selfish purpose for which they were uttered, and cannot 
fail to convince you that from their author, censure and abuse were 
more complimentary, than the highest approbation or the warmest 
praise. 



LETTER XIV. 

j For wisdom and merit, patriotic services, and political ability, 
among the founders of our republic, Alexander Hamilton stands 
second to Washington alone — a position which reflects the brightest 
^ory on them both. With a zeal fed by continual ardour, he 
devoted to the varying exigencies of his country, a mind whose 
resources proved always greater than the greatest occasions. His 
ipention was quick, his judgment strong, his understanding capa- 
cious, his penetration acute, and his memory faithful. He was 
Judent in council,* daring in the field, t eloquent in the Senate, 
gent and persuasive as a writer, expeditious and indefatigable in 
e administration of affairs, disinterested, liberal, firm and enthu- 
siastic. In matters of private feeling and personal honour, his 
frankness and spirit were proverbial, and in his last actj were 
perhaps excessive. 

* An anecdote of Hamilton recorded in Gen. Wilkinson's memoirs, and 
which was before current in conversation, evinces his extreme sagacity as a 
military counsellor. A plan had been devised by Gen. "Washington, while 
ithe British army lay in New York, for seizing the person of Sir H, Clinton, 
then the English Commander-in-Chief. It was considered, determined on, 
and on the point of being put in execution, when Hamilton suggested to Gen. 
[Washington, that although it might succeed, and for a time create a favour- 
iable impression, he was of opinion it would be more advantageous to the enemy 
than to the Americans; inasmuch as they knew Clinton to be by no means a 
formidable antagonist, were acquainted with his plans and official habits: 
whereas if they removed him, his successor could hardly fail to be a more 
efficient adversary. This view of the subject convinced Washington that it 
^as more advisable to preserve than to remove the British Commander-in- 
Chief, and the project was abandoned. 

I t He led the party which took by assault the redoubt on the British left, at 
[he siege of York.— Marshall, Vol. IV. p. 485. 

I t Gen. Hamilton was killed in a duel by Col. Burr, in July, 1804. He went 
p the ground determined to receive but not to return his adversary's fire, and 
acted on this determination — thus offering up his own life to a sense of honour. 



195 

-"Animaeque magnaj 



Prodigum paulum." 

Of a life, the term of which fell short of fifty years, he gave twenty 
to the public service, and left it poor in every thing but a title to 
renown and honour. This, nor a cruel death, nor a neglected 
grave, nor a calumnious rival, could take away; and as a devoted 
patriot, an accomplished soldier, statesman, orator, scholar, and 
gentleman, the memory of Hamilton will bloom and flourish, as 
long as the admiration of mankind shall attend exalted genius, 
heroic virtues, generous atiections, and glorious deeds. 

The main drift of Mr. Jefferson's "Writings," as far as they 
refer to the political history of his own times, is, as you must have 
observed, to impress a persuasion that Hamilton was at heart a 
traitor — that he not only devised but designed a change of our 
government into a monarchy — that in order to perpetrate this in- 
fiamous project, he invented a scheme no less infamous, for corrupt- 
ing the federal legislature, and maintained a criminal understanding 
with the British Government, and with the British envoy in the 
United States. 

This imputation against Hamilton, which is put forward with as 
much confidence as could be manifested in calling Arnold a traitor, 
is distinctly embodied in the citations already made from the letter 
to Mr. Mellish and from the introduction to the Anas. And 
although it is made by a man who bore no part either in defending 
the liberties of the country, or in framing or in establishing the 
republican system constructed for securing them; and against a 
man, who in all these labours took a large and conspicuous share, 
it is supported by no better evidence than what may be found in 
the following passage of a letter from Mr. Jefferson to Dr. Rush. 
(Vol. IV. pp. 155-6.) "While Mr. Adams was Vice President 
and I Secretary of State, I received a letter from President Wash- 
ington, then at Mount Vernon, desiring me to call together the 
heads of departments, and to invite Mr. Adams to join us, (which 
by the bye was the only instance of that being done,) in order to 
determine on some measure which required despatch; and he de- 
sired me to act on it as decided, without again recurring to him.* 
I invited them to dine with me; and after dinner, sitting at our 
wine, having settled our question, other conversation came on, in 
which a collision of opinion arose between Mr. Adams and Col. 
Hamilton, on the merits of the British Constitution, Mr. Adams 

and shielding his enemy's by a feeling of religion. He left behind him a paper 
explaining his motives on the melancholy occasion, in which he declared that 
as a military man he could not refuse the invitation of Col. Burr — while as a 
christian he would not shed the blood of a fellow-creature in private combat. 

* Here Mr. Jetierson mifjht have observed that as Gen. Washington was at 
this time on his tour to the Southern States — then but slowly and rarely visited 
by the public mail — a reference to the Vice President, and non-recurrence to 
the President, on a subject requiring despatch, were seasonable and proper. 



196 

giving it as his opinion, that it" some of its delects and abuses were 
corrected, it would be the most perfect constitution of government 
ever devised bj man. Hamilton on the contrary asserted, that 
with its existing vices, it was the most perfect model of government 
that could be formed; and that the correction of its vices would 
render it an impracticable government. And this jou may be 
assured was the real line of difference between the political prin- 
ciples of these two gentlemen. Another incident took place on the 
same occasion, which will further delineate Hamilton's political 
principles. The room being hung around with a collection of the 
portraits of remarkable men, among them were those of Bacon, 
Newton, and Locke. Hamilton asked me who they were. 1 told 
him they were my trinity of the three greatest men the world had 
ever produced, naming them. He paused for some time: "the 
greatest man," said he, "that ever lived was Julius Caesar." 

Now if any man can contemplate this pompous parade of insig- 
nificant circumstances without laughing, he must have a singular 
insensibility to the ridiculous, or a surprising command of his coun- 
tenance. In regard to proof — although it is substantially repeated 
with a solemn attestation to God, (Vol. IV. p. 450,) it possesses 
not as much as Falstaff's company of recruits did of linen. As 
this latter version attects to be verbatim, and therefore to exclude 
any allowances for inaccuracy of language, it will be doing Mr. 
Jefferson justice to submit it in preference for consideration, "Mr. 
Adams observed, 'purge that constitution of its corruption, and 
give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would 
be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man.' 
Hamilton paused and said, 'purge it of its corruption, and give to 
its popular branch equality of representation, and it would become 
an impracticable government; as it stands at present, with all its 
supposed defects, it is the most perfect government that ever ex- 
isted." 

Even admitting that all this is true, that what Hamilton did say 
and mean was accurately understood and fairly recorded by Mr. 
Jefferson, can any reasonable man, any man out of Bedlam, or not 
destined for that asylum, infer from this anecdote, the existence of 
a design in the breast of Hamilton to overturn our republic.^ In 
the month of April, 1791, three gentlemen, we are told, were sitting 
at their wine in Philadelphia, all of them by study and practice 
statesmen; and the subject of the British Constitution happening 
to be mentioned, one of them observed, that by purging it of the 
corrupt influence of the crown and aristocracy, and equalising the 
right of voting for representatives, it would be the most perfect 
constitution ever devised by the wit of man. One of the three 
gentlemen contested this point, asserted that the alteration suggest- 
ed would render the British Government an impracticable one, that 
as it stood it was the most perfect government that ever existed. 
The third gentleman, who is master of the house, says nothing, 



197 

neither assents to, nor dissents from, either opinion, but carefully 
notes down this casual conversation, as proof of an intention in the 
second gentleman, to convert the government of the United States, 
by corrupting the Legislature, into a monarchy. 

Now which of those parties was most likely to betray his friend 
or his country? which was most fit for stratagems and treasons? 
the unsuspecting guest who made a speculative assertion, the main 
point of which few men at that time would have thought of ques- 
tioning, and who little deemed he was subjecting himself for trial 
on his allegiance; or the attentive host, who with a malice that 
hospitality could not allay, and a suspicion which wine could not 
suspend, "sifted this table conversation," and slipped it into the 
poisoned quiver of his memory, to be directed at "a propitious 
season,'' against the unguarded honour of his companion and col- 
league? This question admits of but one answer, and that of no 
excuse for Mr. Jefferson. 

Let it be recollected that our government had then been but two 
years in operation, was confessed on all hands to be an experiment 
delicate and doubtful, was still exposed to the opposition and an- 
tipathy of many great patriots, and was thought by its best friends 
to be attended by as many chances of failure as success. Let it 
be remembered also, that besides many of its most important forms, 
its leading principles, such as the representative system, the trial 
by jury, the liberty of the press, the benefit of the habeas corpus 
act, and exemption from ex post facto laws, were directly derived 
from the British Constitution: and it will be difficult to conceive 
what other constitution than that of England, a man of reading and 
reflection, could, at the date of this imputed conversation, have 
considered the best that ever existed. He could not be expected 
to bring ours into comparison, for our State governments being 
provincial and domestic in their nature, were incommensurable 
with complete and paramount systems; our first experiment on a 
general plan had signally failed, anil our second had not been tested 
by time or trial, while the incipient steps of its |)rogress encoun- 
tered violent opposition, and exposed it to severe strictures. Under 
these circumstances it would have been less logical than ludicrous 
to subject it to a comparison with old governments, in respect of 
the indispensable property uf duration. It would have been either 
below or above the line of reason and argument, would have been 
a petitio principii, or a prophecy. 

Seeing then that our political nursling could not have been in the 
contemplation of Hamilton, it would appear probable that in order 
to escape the malediction of Mr. Jeft'erson, he should have declared 
a preference for the government of France, Spain or Russia — for 
the despotism of mobs, bigots, or autocrats. 

Tt follows from all this, admitting that a speculative opinion of 
any sort respecting the advantages of a foreign government, should 
at any time be taken as a test of patriotism in a citizen of the 
25 



198 

United States, that the man who in conformity with the opinions of 
Montesquieu and De Lolme, expressed in the year 1791, admira- 
tion for the British government, evinced, so far, respect and attach- 
ment for the analogous system which Washington and Hamilton 
had exerted themselves to establish, were endeavouring to adminis- 
ter for the benefit, and to confirm in the affections of their country- 
men. 

The fairest view of the subject is however afforded by the con- 
sideration, that while Hamilton, who had assisted in framing the 
constitution, and had surpassed (Mr. Madison alone excepted) all 
his fellow-citizens in recommending it with zeal and ability to the 
people of the United States, is here represented as an enemy to the 
constitution, and a traitor to his country, his hospitable accuser 
(having borne no part in the formation of the constitution) had de- 
clared himself neutral in the contest between its advocates and its 
enemies, had expressed, while the event of Hamilton's struggle for 
its success was doubtful (Vol. II. pp. 274 and 78,) decided opposi- 
tion to some of its essential provisions, subsequently encouraged an 
insurrection against its laws, (Vol. IV. pp. 308 et passim,) invented 
a political aconite for its destruction, (Vol. IV. pp. 344,) and to his 
latest breath maintained an unceasing hostility against its conserva- 
tive department. (Vol. IV. p. 337.) 

This contrast speaks as strongly in favour of the modesty as of 
the equity of Mr. Jefferson. And it shews that even if our govern- 
ment, which was then in its cradle, could be supposed to have been 
within the contemplation of the parties to the "table conversation'' 
confessed to have been "sifted" by Mr. Jefferson, good taste and 
good breeding would have united to deter Gen. Hamiliton from 
extolling a system, which was known to have been in part the sub- 
ject of his own creation, the theme of his successful commendation, 
and which was at the same time understood to have engaged any 
thing but the predilection of his entertainer. As to the alleged 
difference of opinion between Mr. Adams and Gen. Hamilton on 
the hypothetical alteration of the British Constitution, that was a 
subject so perfectly abstract, that it is impossible to derive from it 
the remotest inference, in regard of the political character or fidelity 
of either of those gentlemen. The probability is, however, that 
from the less extended diffusion of political knowledge among the 
people of England at that period, the system of Parliamentary re- 
form now under their consideration, would, if adopted then, have 
endangered the stability of the British Government, and, as Hamil- 
ton observed, rendered it impracticable. 

If it were not from an apprehension that I might appear to think 
that Hamilton's character for patriotism required to be proved, I 
should observe that if his intentions were as Mr. Jefferson alleges, 
treasonable, and his "cunning" so great as to enable him to "play 
oft"" the influence of a man so "wise, great, and prudent," as Dr. 
Jones is assured Gen. Washington was, it is absurd to suppose that 



199 

he would have made use of a remark in controversy with the Vice- 
President, and in presence of the Secretary of State, of a nature to 
betray his meditated treason. But as I have all along argued upon 
the admission that this conversation actually took place, the natural 
question whether Mr. Jetterson's assertion to that eft'ect is true, re- 
mains to be considered. 

The earliest mention of it to be found in his writings, is in the 
letter to Dr. Rush above referred to, and dated January the 16th, 
1811, about twenty years after it is said to have occurred. Through- 
out this tract of time his hatred and crimination of Hamilton, flowed 
in a continued and unadulterated stream of bitterness. He affirms 
that on the 10th of July, 1792, he told Gen. Washington, that 
Hamilton "had monarchy in contemplation," and as proof of this 
charge that he had heard Hamilton "say that our constitution was 
a shilly-shally thing of mere milk and water, &c." In December, 
1800, he describes Hamilton to Col. Burr as "the evil genius of his 
country." In July, 1801, Levi Lincoln is assured that Hamilton's 
object was to -'sap the republic by fraud, if he could not destroy it 
by force, and to erect an English monarchy in its place." (Vol. 
III. p, 471). Yet on none of these occasions is this conversation 
related or alluded to, which when mentioned to Dr. Rush, is 
considered par excellence as incontestible proof in support of this 
charge of monarchy and treason. 

Again — to show that nothing like accuracy was observed in de- 
tailing it, a gross inconsistency may be pointed out between the 
two versions of it that have been referred to. In the letter to Dr. 
Rush it is said, that the President wrote to Mr. Jefferson, desiring 
him to call together the heads of departments and to invite the 
Vice-President to join them in order to consult and determine on a 
particular measure which required despatch, and instructing him 
to act on that particular measure in conformity with this determina- 
tion of the cabinet and Vice-President, without recurrence to the 
President. 

In the introduction to the Anas, on the contrary, it is asserted 
that Gen. Washington instead of writing a special letter to Mr. 
Jefferson, desiring him thus to consult and act on a particular 
measure requiring despatch, wrote a circular letter to all the Se- 
cretaries, instructing them generally and prospectively, to pursue 
this course on any measures that might require the action of the 
government during his absence. Further, in the Anas,\n order to 
give a deeper colour to Hamilton's treason, it is averred, (and in 
attestation of the truth of the assertion Mr. Jefferson invokes "the 
God who made him") that when about to dispute the observation of 
Mr. Adams respecting the British constitution, "he paused." But 
in the letter to Dr. Rush this dramatic pause is put with more 
poetical justice before the remark respecting Julius Csesar. But 
at whatever time the pause of this pregnant anecdote was made, 
either over the corruption of the British constitution, or in front of 



-4s. 



200 

"the world's great master and his own," it shews that when Hamil- 
ton was about to talk treason he was apt to make a significant stop, 
in order to rivet the attention of his auditors. And it is probable 
that to this oratorical art, Mr. Jefterson was indebted for the privi- 
lege of being able after the lapse of twenty-seven years, to repeat 
this "table conversation" verbatim; and under the sanction of an 
appeal to God, in proof of its literal accuracy. 

Upon the whole it appears, as well from the general tenor of Mr. 
Jefferson's assertions respecting the character of his politcal ene- 
mies, as from the inconsistency of his statements on this particular 
subject, that the only reason for believing that the remarks here 
put into the mouth of Gen. Hamilton were actually uttered by him, 
is, that they are perfectly compatible with the character of a patriotic 
citizen and an enlightened man. 

But Mr. Jefferson produces from the same dialogue, "another 
incident," which he seems with great reason to consider as equally 
efficacious in proving Hamilton's political turpitude. It is, as you 
have already seen, that at Mr. Jefferson's hospitable board, Hamilton 
said "Julius Csesar was the greatest man that ever lived." And to 
aggravate the enormity of this open attempt on the liberties of his 
country, Hamilton it would seem made this daring assertion after 
Mr. Jefferson had told him that Bacon, Newton and Locke were 
the greatest men "the world had ever produced." 

The inference here attempted, it must be confessed, "at one 
bound high overleaps all bounds." It is however of the true Jef- 
fersonian press-copy stamp, under which assurance and malice were 
circulated for fairness and truth. This monstrous and abominable 
opinion which Hamilton had the audacity to utter, and with the 
emphasis of a preliminary pause, to propel against the patriotic 
nerves of Mr. Jefferson, happened not only to coincide with the 
opinion of the world, but to be in exact conformity with the dictum 
of Lord Bacon, who in one of his Essays observes that "Julius 
Csesar was the most complete character of all antiquity." 

It may however be urged, that in the lapse of years between the 
commencement of modern history and the year 1791, there had 
lived men, among them Bacon, Newton, and Locke, for whom 
Hamilton, in order to save his political virtue, ought to have ex- 
pressed greater admiration than for Julius Caesar. Yet Montesquieu, 
the philosopher of liberty and law, who died about the time Hamil- 
ton was born, (1755,) has left on his immortal pages the same 
opinion;* as has Lord Byron,t who lived after Hamilton was dead, 
who was the devoted friend of human freedom, risked his fortune 
and his life in an attempt to rescue Italy from servitude, and ex- 
pired in a generous struggle for the liberty of Greece. As Lord 
Bacon was Mr. Jefferson's principal idol, it would follow that the 

* Grandeur et Decadence des Remains, Chap. XI. 
tChilde Harold's Pilgrimage, Canto iv. Stanza xc, note 47. 



201 

charge of bribery and corruption in office, would, by his own reason- 
ing, lie against Mr. Jefterson, inasmuch as Lord Bacon was con- 
victed, fined and disgraced for that offence. 

You will easily recollect that on one occasion, in order to fix 
deeply on the memory of Hamilton this charge of treason, Mr. 
Jeff'erson ventures the length of asserting that Gen. Washington 
kneiv of Hamilton's corrupt and monarchical designs. (Letter to 
Mr. Meliish, Vol. IV. p. 185.) His language on that occasion is — 
"General Washington has asseverated to me a thousand times his 
determination that the existing government should have a fair trial, 
and that in support of it he would spend the last drop of his blood. 
He did this the more repeatedly, because he knew Gen. Hamilton's 
political bias and my apprehensions from it." Now it may be said 
that the words "political bias^^ do not convey the imputation of a 
criminal design. But on the previous page Mr. Jefterson himself 
thus explains their meaning. "Anglomany, monarchy, and separa- 
tion, these are the principles of the Essex federalists; Jlnglomany and 
monarchy those of the Hamiltonians." Here we see that the words 
"political bias" were used as equivalent with the phrase joo^i/ica/ 
principles, and that the principles on which Gen. Hamilton acted 
were those of monarchy and Anglomany, a term which Mr. Jeffer- 
son appears to have coined in France for purposes of calumny in 
his own country. Besides, when speaking on the same subject he 
uses synonymes for bias which establish clearly the force which he 
intended to give that term: as at page 237, of the 4th volume: — 
"And these declarations he repeated to me the oftener and the 
more pointedly because he knew my suspicions of Hamilton's 
views f^ that is, that his "views" (or bias) were to introduce a mo- 
narchy in the United States like that of England. In addition, it 
is obvious that bias must have been intended to signify something 
grave and atrocious, as it is placed as the ground-work of Gen. 
Washinu;ton's "thousand and one" protestations, and the main- 
spring of Mr. Jefferson's sincere and philosophical apprehensions. 

There can then be no doubt, that by asserting Washington's 
knowledge of Hamilton's "political bias," Mr. Jefterson meant to 
affirm that Hamilton was engaged in a scheme to overturn, by 
corrupting the legislature, the existing government of the United 
States, and to establish in its stead a monarchical government, 
and that Gen. Washington knew he was engaged in this scheme. 
But at page 450, when laying a difterent train of deception, when 
endeavouring to prove that Gen. Washington did not espouse or 
countenance the political principles of Hamilton, he contradicts this 
assertion in terms as earnest and unqualified as those he had em- 
ployed in its enunciation and repetition. "Gen. Washington was 
true to the republican charge confided to him; and has solemnly 
and repeatedly protested to me, in our conversations, that he would 
lose the last drop of his blood in support of it; and he did this the 
oftener and with the more earnestness, because he knew my sus- 



202 

picions of Hamilton's designs against it, and wished to quiet tliem. 
For he was not aware of the drift, or of the effect of Hamiltori's 
schcmes.^^ From this pointed contradiction it is evident, that who- 
ever believes Mr. Jefterson's accusations against Hamilton, and 
confides in his claims to the credit of having detected and defeated 
them, by bringing about "the revolution of 1800," (Vol. IV. p. 316,) 
must believe in a story which Mr. Jefferson himself has declared 
to be false, and must yield to pretensions which he has proved to 
be preposterous. 

However, as if to complete this formidable array of proof against 
the political integrity of his slaughtered colleague, he avers (Vol. 
IV. p. 446) that Hamilton "avowed the opinion that man could be 
governed by one of two motives only, force or interest.'' It appears 
to me, I must confess, that, felonious as this opinion may be in the 
eyes of "« real JeffersonianP it is impossible that a man of Gen. 
Hamilton's clear understanding could have held any other. Arbi- 
trary governments are founded on force, either actual or potential, 
in the governors; free governments rest on the interest, real or 
supposed, of the governed. There is no other possible foundation 
for a free government than interest. It was because Gen. Wash- 
ington and his colleagues of the convention, thought our present 
government would secure and promote the interest of the nation, 
that they framed and recommended it, and for no other reason; and 
it was because a majority of the people of the United States came 
to the same conclusion, that they adopted it. And it is not only 
matter of certainty but of satisfaction, that should a majority of the 
people be convinced by experience that it fails to answer the great 
end of its formation, they will set to work and change it, so as to 
bring it into a form better calculated to promote their interest. 
Why is it one of our favourite political maxims that education and 
representation should be co-extensive.^ It is that by the first, the 
people will be taught to understand their true interest, and by the 
second, be enabled to secure it. Yet this liberal, sound and obvious 
opinion, is made the ground of a dark, and disgraceful charge, of 
endless sneers and ceaseless accusations against the memory of 
Alexander Hamilton — a man whose steps from boyhood to the 
grave were those of patriotism and honour. 

But another attempt equally formidable against the memory of 
Hamilton is found in a memorandum, which, it is difficult to con- 
ceive, that an honourable man would listen to, much less record. 
(Vol. IV. pp. 511-12.) "January 24th, 1800, Mr. Smith, a mer- 
chant from Hamburg, gives me the following information. The St. 
Andrew's Club of New York, (all Scotch tories,) gave a public 
dinner lately. Among other guests Alexander Hamilton was one. 
After dinner, the first toast was, "the President of the United 
States." It was drank without any particular approbation. The 
next was, "George the Third." Hamilton stood up on his feet, 
and insisted on a bumper and three cheers. The whole company 



rose and gave the cheers. One of them, though a federalist, was 
so disgusted at the partiality shown by Hamilton to a foreign 
sovereign over his own President, that he mentioned it to a Mr. 
Schwartshouse, an American merchant at New York, who men- 
tioned it to Smith." 

The vagueness and extent of transmission contrived for this 
story gives it all the dignity of fable. The sceptre of Agamemnon 
was not handed down through so many personages, or derived from 
so doubtful an original. A person without a name mentions it to 
Mr. Schwartshouse, who tells it to Mr. Smith, considered every 
where the proxy of Mr. Nobody, who in his turn mentions it to 
Mr. Jeft'erson; and he, the bitterest enemy Hamilton ever had, 
prepares it for the public! 

If the least foundation can be imagined for this shadow of a 
shade of a phantom of a fiction, you will perceive it can signify 
nothing else than, that as the Scotch entertainers paid a compliment 
to Gen. Hamilton's known national feelings by toasting the Presi- 
dent of the United States, he returned it by toasting the health of 
their King. And that in the regular progression of drinking, the 
second toast was attended by more animation or less formality than 
the first; an animation in which the whole company are said to have 
participated. 

In the midst of this silly falsification one truth stands conspicuous. 
It is, that while this splendid genius and generous patriot, Alex- 
ander Hamilton, was retrieving by brilliant forensic exertions, for 
the good of his family, the time he had devoted to his country, he 
was waylaid in his hours of refreshment and moments of festivity 
by the unrelenting hatred of his rival; and could not even wet his 
lips with wine, or relax his strong intelligence in society, without 
having poison dropped by Mr. Jefferson into the flowing bowl, and 
mixed with the sustaining viands. Was ever such a state of things 
exhibited before in civilized society."* The Duke of Marlborough 
was hated by Bolingbroke; the great Lord Chatham by the first 
Lord Holland; and the sons of these political foes were steady 
political rivals. But these men never descended to invent or col- 
lect silly personal slanders, that by keeping them bottled up for a 
quarter of a century they might acquire a certain strength of mis- 
chief. The finest encomium ever passed on Marlborough was by 
his generous enemy; and the highest compliment ever bestowed on 
the memory of Pitt, was pronounced by Fox; who, if he ever ex- 
celled his rival, did so by doing justice to his virtues. 

Upon close examination of this story, another and not less in- 
teresting truth may be discovered. It appears that when Hamilton 
rose antl proposed three cheers to the health of George the Third, 
"the whole company also rose and gave the cheers," and that 
nevertheless one of the company was so disgusted at Hamilton's 
manner of drinking the toast, that he mentioned it as evidence of 
his shameful partiality for "a foreign sovereign over his own Presi- 



204 

dent." Now Hamilton's manner of drinking the toast "George 
the Third," was precisely that in which this very person is made 
to declare that he himselV drank it — that is, with "three cheers." 
In order to go along with Mr. Jeft'erson then, we must believe not 
only that this person, "a federalist," was disgusted with Gen. 
Hamilton, but that he was disgusted with himself on the occasion, 
and further, that he not only reprobated Gen. Hamilton, but re- 
proached himself to Mr. Schwartshouse, with having shewn a dis- 
gusting partiality for a foreign sovereign. Unless we admit that 
human nature deviated from its regular course in this individual, 
we must refuse to believe that he said any thing about disgust in 
regard to Hamilton, and we must conclude that he simply men- 
tioned the facts of having dined with that distinguished man at the 
St. Andrew's Club, and that the health of the King of England 
was drunk with marks of general hilarity. If there were any 
probability that this circumstance of disgust was interwoven either 
by Mr. Schwartshouse or Mr. Smith, it would be excluded by the 
assertion of Mr. Jeft'erson to the contrary. It is certain then that 
it was added by Mr. Jefterson himself, who, hearing an innocent 
anecdote from Mr. Smith, "at a later date" attached to it this 
circumstance with a view of completing the tissue of slander which 
he was fabricating for the destruction of a rival's fame. In this 
light, the anecdote is not only perfectly natural but infinitely 
valuable. For while it comes "within the laws of Mr. Jefferson's 
character," it shews to the world the manner in which he really 
employed those hours that were supposed to be sacred to (Vol. I. 
p. 8) "learning, philosophic inspiration, and generous devotion to 
virtue." 

As Gen. Lee was allied to Gen. Hamilton by the warmest friend- 
ship, by kindred talents, and congenial patriotism, exemption from 
similar vilification, though desirable to his friends, could not have 
been creditable to his reputation.* 

[* Mr. Tucker, who does much justice to the memory of Hamilton, saying 
truly, that "he did more than any oLher individual in recommending the con- 
stitution to the adoption of the people," and that "his frankness, generosity, 
and manly independence were such as to command the respect of his adversa- 
ries, as well as the unbounded attachment of his friends," (Vol. I. p. 49G-7,) 
yet says decidedly that his "predilections for a monarchical government were 
well known," (p. 312.) Supposing this to be true, yet "predikdions" are not 
"designs,^' and it is of hostile designs against our institutions of which Mr. 
Jefferson accuses him; and we have the very authority to which Mr. Tucker 
refers, to prove Gen. Hamilton's monarchical predilections, to shew that he 
"heartily assented to the constitution," that he "was of that kind of men, who 
may most safely be trusted, for he was more covetous of glory than of wealth 
or power," and that he had that "love for the people," which his opponents 
only affected. Indeed, when we consider attentively, and in its proper light, 
this testimony of Gouverneur Morris, which Mr. Tucker relies on so confident- 
ly, it will be found not to be exactly what he imagines it. His letter to Mr. 
Walsh (Spark's Life, Vol. III. p. 260,) must rather be regarded as an e.ssay 
than a piece of evidence. For in simply testifying to a fact it is difficult to 
suppose that he would draw such nice distinctions as are involved in his asser- 



205 



LETTER XV. 



Among the great officers to whom the people of the United States 
are indebted for the success of their Revolution, and of their present 



tion, that Hamilton "heartily assented to the constitution," and yet that "he 
disliked it;" and that he "hated republican government, because he confounded 
it with democratical government." For though a discriminating essayist may 
regard the Latin origin of the word republic as making it express more properly 
a government like that of Rome, (which we should rather consider an aristo- 
cracy,) while the Greek derivation of democracy makes it more appropriately 
describe the commonwealths of Greece, (which were certainly much less 
democratic than those of New England in our sense of that term,) yet the 
common parlance in which witnesses should speak makes no such nice dis- 
tinctions. But this letter does bear distinct testimony to Hamilton's detesta- 
tion of despotism, and love for liberty and honour. For it says he detested 
democratical government "because he believed it must end in despotism, and 
be, in the mean time, destructive to public morality;" and that "he was too 
proud, and, let me add, too virtuous to recommend or tolerate measures 
eventually fatal to liberty and honour." 

These apparent inconsistencies, then, in Mr. Morris's letter, maybe ex- 
plained by referring to the diffei'ent views of Hamilton and himself, evinced 
when the constitution was formed, and, as it would seem, entertained ever 
after. It was then agreed on all hands, that democracy was to be the basis of 
the new government, and the only question was, to what extent and in what 
proportions the elements of the other two forms, monarchy and aristocracy, 
should be mingled with it. Mr. Morris advocated a strong infusion of aristo- 
cracy as the best corrective of those evils which are supposed to beset popular 
government; (see Yeates's Report, &c. p. 201;) while Mr. Hamilton argued 
(p. 170-1,) that "those who mean to form a solid repiMican government ought 
to proceed to the confines of another government," and thought that other 
ought to be a monarchy; and contended that, "as long as offices are open to 
all men, and no constitutional rank is established, it is pure repidjlicanism — 
but if we incline too much to democracy, we shall shoot into monarchy." 

Mr. Madison inclined to the aristocratic infusion — saying (p. 170,) the mi- 
nority of the opulent should be protected against the majority — "That the 
senate ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, ought to have 
permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions, but my opi- 
nion is, the longer they continue in office the better." While "Mr. Gerry (ac- 
cording to Judge Yeates, p. 118,) could not be governed by the prejudices of 
the people — Their good sense will ever have its weight. Perhaps a limited 
monarchy would be the best government, if we could organize it by creating 
a house of peers; but that cannot be done." Andagain, (p. 188,) "Aristocracy 
is the worst kind of government, and I would sooner submit to a monarchy." 

Thus it seems that this subsequent burning and shining light of democracy, 
who rasped down traitors by the herd, was for following Mr. Hamilton, at 
least to the confines of monarchy. 

Mr. Morris says in his letter to Mr. Walsh — "One marked trait of the 

General's (Hamilton's) character was the pertinacious adherence to opinions 

he had once formed." Therefore the "favourite form" which Mr. Morris 

said (letter to Aaron Ogden, Vol. III. p. 216— also referred to by Mr. Tucker,) 

26 



206 



form of government, none were more faithful, and few were more 
useful, friends of their countrj, than Gen. Knox. 



"he knew was inadmissible," — the "hobby he bestrode to the great annoyance 
of his friends, and not without injury to himself," was probably nothing more 
than the system of government he presented to the convention for their con- 
sideration. Mr. Hamilton contended that that was republican — said distinctly 
that he ''ivould vish to go the full length of repvilican principles,'" (p. 136,) and 
that whatever might be his opinions about government in the abstract, he 
thought "it would be unwise to change that form (the republican) of govern- 
ment." He confessed in concluding his manly speech, that his plan and the 
Virginia plan (and of this Mr. Madison was a strenuous advocate,) were both 
"very remote from the idea of the people," but said that their notions on the 
subject of government were gradually ripening — that "they had begun to be 
tired of an excess of democracy — and what even is the Virginia plan but pork 
still toith a little change of the sauce?" that is, that in its nature it was as mo- 
narchical as his own. Mr. Jefferson says in his Anas, (p. 506,) that Hamilton 
said of the government we adopted — "Oh! say the federal monarchy, let us 
call things by their right names, for a monarchy it is." And Mr. Jefferson 
himself said of it in a letter to Mr. Adams, (Tucker's Life, Vol. I. p. 253,) 
"The house of federal representatives will not be adequate to the manage- 
ment of affairs, either foreign or federal. Their president seems to be a- bad 
edition of a Polish king. He may be elected from four years to four years for 
life. Reason and experience prove to us that a chief magistrate so continuable is 
an office for life.'' And to Col. Smith he says, (same page) "what we have 
always read of Polish kings, would have forever excluded the idea of one con- 
tinuable for life." Thus it would appear that Mr. Jefferson considered our 
government a bad edition of the Polish monarchy; and his letter to Mr. Adams 
will be found to sustain the reasoning of Mr. Hamilton on the same subject. 
For Mr. Morris truly described his views in the letter to Mr. Walsh where 
he says — He (Mr. Hamilton) was not, as "some have supposed, so blind as 
not to see, that the president could purchase power, and shelter himself from 
responsibility, by sacrificing the rights and duties of his office at the shrine 
of influence. But he was too proud, and, let me add, too virtuous, to recom- 
mend or tolerate measures eventually fatal to liberty and honour. It was not, 
then, because he thought the executive magistrate too feeble to carry on the 
business of the state, that he wished him to possess mote authority, but be- 
cause he thought there was not sufficient power to carry on the business 
honestly. He apprehended a corrupt understanding between the executive 
and a dominating party in the legislature, which would destroy the president's 
responsibility; and he wasnc>t to be taught, what every one knows, that where 
responsibility ends, fraud, injustice, tyranny and treachery begin." 

This account of Mr. Hamilton's views, given in 1811, agrees entirely with 
his main speech in the convention; and he said on another occasion in that 
body — "Establish a weak government, and you must, at times, overleap the 
bounds. Rome was obliged to create dictators." (Yeates, p. 14'2.) According 
to Mr. Jefferson's account of his own conduct he experienced this necessity 
when he purchased Louisiana; and we have the same authority (Vol. IV. p. 
453,) that in 1791, Mr. Hamilton thought the success of our experiment in 
government appeared more possible than it had done before, and said "there 
are other and other stages of improvement which, if the present does not suc- 
ceed, may be tried, and ought to be tried, before we give up the republican 
form altogether; for that mind must be really depraved which would not prefer 
the equality of political rights, which is the foundation of pure republicanism, if 
it can be obtained consistently with order. Therefore whoever by his writings 
disturbs the present order of things, is really blameable, however pure his in- 
tentions may be." 

Mr, Tucker admits (Vol. I. p. 366,) that Mr, Jefferson's difference of opi- 



207 

In the war of the Revolution, having commenced his military 
career as a volunteer at the Battle of Bunker's Hill, he fought his 
vi^ay to the rank of Major General. He commanded in chief the 
Artillery, and serving for the most part under the eye of Washing- 
ton, engaged in a remarkable degree his official confidence and 
personal friendship. Upon the resignation of Gen. Lincoln as 
Secretary of War, the acknowledged capacity and valuable expe- 
rience of Gen. Knox, induced the Congress to appoint him to that 
important station. In this situation he was found by President 
Washington when he assumed the direction of the new government, 
and his judgment and regard were both satisfied by the consent of 
Gen. Knox to continue in it. Though he did not possess profound 
erudition or rare acquirements, his qualifications were of much 
higher value. He was a man of sound judgment, honourable prin- 
ciples, useful knowledge, and perfect candour. The visionary 
projects or interested schemes of more ingenious minds, were 
shivered and dissipated by contact with the manly patriotism and 
strong sense of Gen. Knox. Hence it appears, that in the Cabinet 
consultations, of which, Mr. Jefferson's translation only is preserv- 
ed. Gen. Knox frequently dissented from the speculations of the 
Secretary of State, and generally coincided in opinion with the 
minister of finance. This unpardonable and antigallican offence 
was never forgiven by Mr. Jefferson, and entailed on Gen. Knox 
the foulest vituperation, which resentment could suggest to a mind 
expert in the inventions of slander, and habituated to the secret 
indulgences of malice. 

The following extracts from Mr. Jefferson's Memoranda, revised 
and corrected after a. prematur o( twenty-five years, afford evidence 
of the terms which the Sage of Monticello thought suitable to the 
character of Gen. Knox. (Vol. IV. p. 473.) "Knox for once dared to 
differ from Hamilton, and to express, very submissively, an opinion," 
&c. (p. 484.) "Knox subscribed at once to Hamilton's opinion, 
that we ought to declare the treaty void, acknowledging at the 
same time, like a fool as he is, that he knew nothing about it." 
Again — after observing that he himself, Hamilton, and Randolph, 
submitted their opinions in writing to the President on a certain 



nion -with Mr. Hamilton "amounted to personal distrust and ill-will." There- 
fore his testimony in favour of Col. Hamilton, especially in relation to his 
political principles must be regarded as the strongest possible. Add to all this 
the paramount weight of Gen. Washington's testimony, who being admitted 
on all hands to have been true to "his republican trust," would not have given 
his confidence to one whom he could suspect for a moment to be hostile to our 
institutions, and we shall be enabled to understand to what extent Hamilton's 
predilections were monarchical, and with what limitations Gouverneur Mor- 
ris's testimony is to be regarded. Mr. Jefferson calls the latter "a high-flying 
monarchist,'' and taking the imputation in the sense here intended, it is proba- 
l)le that Mr. Morris would have acquitted Col. Hamilton of it, as decidedly as 
he would have repelled it from himself] 



208 

occasion, he adds, "I believe Knox's was never thought worth 
offering or asking for." (p. 491.) "Knox in a foolish incoherent 
sort of speech introduced the pasquinade lately printed." — "Knox 
said we should have had fine work, if Congress had been sitting 
these last two months. The fool thus let out the secret. Hamilton 
endeavoured to patch up the indiscretion of this blabber," &c. 

Now if you are desirous to ascertain more accurately than I can 
pretend to explain it, the precise degree of merit which these 
flowers of Mr. Jefferson's rhetoric signify, it will be necessary that 
you attend to the following testimonials in regard to the character 
and services of Gen. Knox. Dr. Thacher in his interesting Journal 
of the Revolutionary War, thus speaks of him. "Long vvill he be 
remembered as the ornament of every circle in which he moved, as 
the amiable and enlightened companion, the generous friend, the 
man of feeling and benevolence; — his conversation was animated 
and cheerful, and he imparted an interest to every subject that he 
touched. In his gayest moments he never lost sight of dignity; — 
he invited confidence, but repelled familiarity. His imagination 
was brilliant, his conceptions lofty; and no man ever possessed the 
power of embodying his thoughts in more vigorous language; when 
ardently engaged they were peculiarly bold and original, and you 
irresistibly felt in his society, that his intellect was not of the ordi- 
nary class. Yet no man was more unassuming, none more delicate- 
ly alive to the feelings of others. He had the peculiar talent of 
rendering all who were with him, happy in themselves; and no one 
ever more feelingly enjoyed the happiness of those around him." 
"To the testimony of private friendship, may be added that of less 
partial strangers, who have borne witness, both to his public and 
private virtues. Lord Moira, who is now perhaps the greatest gene- 
ral that England can boast of, has in a late publication spoken in 
high terms of his military talents. Nor should the opinion of the 
Marquis Chastellux be omitted. ''As for Gep. Knox," he says, 
"to praise him for his military talents alone, would be to deprive 
him of half the eulogium he merits, a man of understanding, well 
informed, gay, sincere, and honest — it is impossible to know without 
esteeming him, or to see without loving him, — thus have the English 
without intention, added to the ornaments of the human species by 
awakening talents where they least wished or expected." (pp. 589, 
590.) To this may be added the following extracts of Letters from 
Gen. Washington to Gen. Knox — the first written when he retired 
from the direction of the War Department, and the second when 
Washington himself was about to lay down the office of President. 
— "I cannot suffer you, however, to close your public service with- 
out uniting to the satisfaction which must arise in your own mind 
from conscious rectitude, assurances of my perfect persuasion that 
you have deserved well of your country. My personal knowledge 
of your exertions, while it authorizes me to hold this language, 
justifies the sincere friendship which I have borne you, and which 



209 

will accompany you in every station in life."* "Although the 
prospect of retirement is most grateful to my soul, and I have not 
a wish to mix again in the great world, or to partake in its politics, 
yet I am not without my regrets at parting with (perhaps never 
more to meet) the few intimates whom 1 love. Among them, be as- 
sured, you are one."t This is the man, who, admired by distin- 
guished foreigners and unpretending fellow-citizens, tried in the 
judgment, and stamped by tlie affection of Washington; who for 
twenty years, without interruption or abatement, was high in the 
military and civil trust of the United .States, is handed down to 
posterity by Mr. Jefferson, as a parasite, a fool, and a blabber. 

About four years after his resignation as Secretary of War, Gen. 
Knox, who had, too long for the advantage of his own affairs, at- 
tended to those of his country, experienced the misfortune to become 
insolvent, and to find himself in the decline of life, reduced to 
poverty. This calamity, so far from exciting the commiseration of 
his former colleague, Mr. Jefferson, is related by him to Mr. Madi- 
son in the following heartless language, (Vol. III. p. 406) "Gen. 
Knox has become bankrupt for four hundred thousand dollars and 
has resigned his military commission. He took in Gen. Lincoln 
for one hundred and fifty thousand -dollars, which breaks him. 
Col. Jackson also sunk with him." So that in 1799, Mr. Jefferson 
thought if a man suffered a pecuniary loss as surety or creditor of 
his fiiend, he might be said to have been taken in by that friend — 

"Nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futuras." 

However, after this "fool, blabber, and bankrupt," was dead, the 
wise, philosophic, and diplomatic Mr. Jefferson found it convenient 
to embrace an opportunity of defrauding his memory of credit, in 
order to transfer the spoil to his own modest account. As this is 
one of the most cruel instances of the dupery he practised on the 
waning age and waxing vanity of Mr. Adams, it is not unworthy of 
particular notice. 

It seems that early in January, 1811, Dr. Rush had expressed an 
interest in bringing about a restoration of correspondence between 
these ex-Presidents. His intimation to that effect, drew on the 
16th of the same month a favourable reply from Mr. Jefferson, who 
hearing nothing more from Dr. Rush, or nothing conclusive, at 
least, on the subject, volunteered a fresh communication in further- 
ance of it, on the 5th of the following December. In this commu- 
nication he informs Dr. Rush that two of his neighbours had visited 
Mr. Adams in the courseof the previous summer; that they found him 
free in the abuse of his Ministers of State, saying they acted above 
his control and often against his opinions; called them his masters^ 
and after reprobating the licentiousness of the press to which Mr. 

* Marshal), Vol. V. p. 615. t Ibid. Vol. V. p. 34, Notes. 



2J0 

Jeff'erson had been exposed, added — "I always loved Jefferson and 
still love him." This Mr. Jeft'erson assures Dr. Rush "is enough 
for him;" and he gives the Doctor full powers to conclude a treaty, 
not only of peace and amity, but of fraternity and partition. Mr. 
Adams soon after sends him a few samples of homespun cloth, and 
Mr. Jefferson thereupon fires a salute of reciprocating compliments. 
This reconciliation between two aged statesmen, who had both 
filled the highest offices in the Union, and had been rivals in the 
race for power, has in it at first sight, something very commendable 
and pleasing. But it turns out to be a friendship established upon 
the basis of that struck up between Anthony and Augustus, when 
they buried their mutual animosity in the common destruction of 
their friends; with this difference, that of the American Duumviri, 
all the sacrifices were made by Mr. Adams. As a preliminary, he 
resigned his ministers to execration and himself to contempt. For 
this sacrifice, instead of a hecatomb of democrats, Mr. Jefferson 
assigns him a province of flattery, a tempting bait to a man of im- 
moderate egotism, though a cheap equivalent for one of infinite as- 
sertion. In his first letter he persuades Mr. Adams to write to 
him, in order that — "I should have the pleasure of knowing, that 
in the race of life, you do not keep in its physical decline the same 
distance ahead of me, which you have done in political honours and 
achievements." At this rate the correspondence jogs along, to 
judge from Mr. Jefferson's Letters, cheerfully enough, until the 
£9th of May, 1813. Then, it seems, Mr. Adams requested ex- 
planations of two letters written by Mr. Jefferson to some third 
person, which had been referred to by a hostile pamphleteer, in 
support of strictures on Mr. Adams's public character and political 
sentiments. In answer, Mr. Jeft'erson, after extenuating the cen- 
sure of these letters, endeavours to show that it was not aimed at 
Mr, Adams but at the federalists generally — observing, "You hap- 
pen indeed to be quoted, because you happen to express more 
pithily than had been done by themselves one of the mottoes of the 
party." He then proceeds in a strain of deception that shows the 
confidence with which he practised on the feeble senility of Mr. 
Adams, and which for shallow and extravagant absurdity, I think, 
you will agree, has scarcely its parallel in his own "Writings." 

The occasion to which these obnoxious letters of Mr. Jefferson 
referred, was this. Mr. Adams, when President, had received an 
address from a club of young men in Philadelphia, in which the 
fantastic people of France, and their fantastic notions of the infinite 
perfectibility of the human mind, were vehemently lauded, as out- 
shining the wisdom of the past, and exploding the value of expe- 
rience. In answering this important paper, he had ventured to doubt 
this doctrine of perfection, and even to express becoming respect 
for the lessons of experience, and had gone so far, it would appear, 
as to question whether minds of "stronger penetration" and wider 
range than those of the Jeffersonian "trinity," Bacon, Newton, and 



211 

Locke, were likely to appear on the stage of the world. This 
answer, which might possibly have been a frosty reproof of the 
pullulating philosophers of Philadelphia, Mr. Jeft'erson attacked, 
not openly and fairly, but, as was his wont, secretly and circuitously, 
in order to expose Mr. Adams, with whom he was competing for 
the next Presidency, as an "jlngloman," a "monocrat," and an 
enemy to the progress of mental improvement. And this attack he 
endeavours to explain. 

After observing that one of his letters was on the subject of re- 
ligion, and was likely to provoke the priesthood against him, he 
proceeds to expound the other. (Vol. IV. pp. 194, 195.) "The 
readers of my letter should be cautioned not to confine its view to 
this country alone. England and its alarmists were equally under 
consideration. Still less niust they consider it as looking person- 
ally to you. You happen indeed to be quoted, because you happened 
to express more pithily than had been done by themselves, one of 
the mottoes of the party. This was in your answer to the address 
of the young men of Philadelphia. (See Selection of Patriotic Ad- 
dresses, p. 198.) One of the questions, you know, on which our 
parties took different sides, was on the improvability of the human 
mind, in science, in ethics, in government, &c. Those who advo- 
cated reformation of institutions, pari passu with the progress of 
science, maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that 
progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, denied im- 
provement, and advocated steady adherence to the principles, 
practices, and institutions of our fathers, which they represented 
as the consummation of wisdom, and acme of excellence, beyond 
which, the human mind could never advance. Although in the 
passage of your answer alluded to, you expressly disclaim the wish 
to influence the freedom of inquiry, you predict that will produce 
nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity, than the princi- 
ples, institutions, and systems of education received from their an- 
cestors. 1 do not consider this your deliberate opinion. You 
possess yourself too much science, not to see how much is still ahead 
of you, unexplained and unexplored. Your own consciousness 
must place you as far before our ancestors, as in the rear of our 
posterity. I consider it as an expression lent to the prejudices of 
your friends; and although 1 happened to cite it from you, the whole 
letter shews I had them only in view. In truth, my dear Sir, we 
were far from considering you as the author of all the measures we 
blamed. They were placed under the protectijon of your name, but 
we were satisfied they wanted much of your approbation. We 
ascribed them to their real authors, the Pickerings, the Wolcotts, 
the Tracys, the Sedgvvicks, et id genus omnc, with whom we sup- 
posed you in a state of duresse. I well remember a conversation 
with you in the morning of the day on which you nominated to the 
Senate a substitute for Pickering, in which you expressed a just 
impatience under the legacy of Secretaries which Gen. Washington 



212 

had left you; and whom you seemed therefore, to consider under 
public protection. Many other incidents shewed how ditterently 
you would have acted with less impassioned advisers, and subse- 
quent events have proved that your minds were not together. You 
would do me great injustice, therefore, by taking to yourself, what 
was intended for men, who were then your secret, as they are now 
your open enemies. Should you write on the subject, as you pro- 
pose, 1 am sure we shall see you place yourself further from them 
than from us. As to myself, I shall take no part in any discussions: 
I leave others to judge of what I have done, and to give me exactly 
that place, which they shall think I have occupied. Marshall has 
written libels on one side." 

Poor old Mr. Adams, after having been flattered into a forgetful- 
ness of aches and injuries, or rather into a belief that they were the 
phantoms of his own suspicions, comes across evidences of their 
reality so impressive, that his languid sensibility is awakened, and 
he asks how they are to be reconciled to the uniform aff'ection and 
respect, which Mr. Jefferson professes to have entertained for him. 
Straightway he is taken hold of, and hurried round a circle of com- 
pliments, inconsistencies, and falsehoods, with such smooth rapidity 
of assurance, as to render him even more giddy and imbecile, than 
he was before the offensive discovery had roused him; and he is 
then conducted to his elbow-chair, with a caricature of Pickering, 
and a calumny of Marshall, to amuse his weakness, and employ 
his garrulity. 

This explanation is chiefly to be admired for the boldness with 
which its fictions and absurdities are "played off," on the enfeebled 
mind of Mr. Adams. For, notwithstanding Mr, Jefferson's own 
infatuation, from the long practice of saying whatever he pleased, 
and having whatever he pleased to say generally believed, he must 
have been aware that no man, in possession of common sense, could 
fail to see through the imposition he was attempting; and it is 
therefore surprising that this letter should have been left for publi- 
cation. 

He assures Mr. Adams, that notwithstanding the obnoxious re- 
marks in the letter he had alluded to, were applied to certain illi- 
beral and preposterous sentiments in his answer to the Philadelphia 
address, they were not intended for him in the least, and were in 
fact occasioned altogether by an unaccountable succession of acci- 
dents. I happened to quote you, but you happened to express more 
pithily than any body else, a motto of the party, and thereupon, I 
happened to "cite" your expression. So that although Mr. Adams 
was the acknowledged leader, (or, as Mr. Jefferson calls him, 
(Vol. III. p. 376) "their oracle,"*) of the federal party, and had 

* To prevent cavilling as to the meaning of this phrase, "their oracle," it 
may be as well to observe that although the word "oracle" is elsewhere used 
by Mr. Jefferson in a dilTerent sense, it can only mean here, that he considered 



213 

expressed their sentiments more pithily, than any other member of 
the party could; and although Mr. Jefterson, his political rival, and 
the leader of the opposite party, "cited," and reprobated this pithy 
expression, and the sentiments of which it was the vehicle, it would 
be doing him the greatest injustice possible, to suppose that he had 
the least allusion to Mr. Adams; and would be very unfair, not to 
feel convinced that his censures were intended, first for the enemies 
of Mr. Adams, and next for the alarmists of England! Now it 
seems to me, that if he had put half a dozen small shot in old Mr. 
Adams, instead of putting this score of slanders upon him, it would 
have been full as fair an excuse to say that it was an entire accident, 
that he happened to cock his piece, happened to take aim at him, and 
happened to fire, but that every body must have known from his 
heavy load, and long gun, that he was taking a raking shot at a 
majority of the people in New England, and the alarmists in Old 
England! This explanation you must allov/, surpasses his con- 
tending versions of the famous letter to Mazzei. 

But as if perceiving that the idea of the heavy load would not 
allay the smart of Mr. Adams, Mr. Jefterson proceeds to soothe 
him with an unction of flattery. He is assured that he must in all 
reason, feel conscious of being advanced far ahead of all men who 
had lived before him, not excepting Bacon, Newton, and Locke — 
who were all dead before Mr. Adams was born. So that Hamilton 
ought to have said that Mr. Adams was "the greatest man that ever 
lived" — unless he excepted the sage of Monticello, who would thus 
have been placed at one and the same time, above both his rivals 
and his "trinity." 

Yet notwithstanding this scientific supereminence of Mr. Adams, 
Mr. Jefferson tells him, he was so much of a simpleton, that he 
mistook his enemies for his friends, and submitting to duresse, 
fathered a brood of measures, which his Cabinet hatched, but he 
neither begot nor approved. 

There are however two passages in this letter to Mr. Adams 
which deserves more serious attention, because they do happen to 
let out a glimmering of truth. One is that in which Mr. Jefterson 
declares that the difterence between his party and the federalists 
consisted in the policy of the latter being to abide by the institutions 
we had established and then possessed, while that of the former was 



Mr. Adams the leader of the federal party. He says he was "their oracle," 
as we are told in the history of the Greeks, that the oracle at Delphos was 
"their oracle," that is, that they were in the habit of consulting and being di- 
rected by the responses of that oracle. At page 388, of the same volume, Mr. 
Jefferson, speaking of Mr. Adams, says that Mr. Goodhue was "his oracle,'' 
or mouthpiece, as the Greeks, when speaking of Apollo, said that the same 
oracle at Delphos, was "his oracle," or mouthpiece. So that a fair interpreta- 
tion of both these phrases, proves that Mr. Jefferson really considered Mr. 
Adams, the Magnus Apollo of the federal party. 
27 



214 

"a reformation of our institutions, pari -passu with the progress of 
science." Now if we take this to be the true state of the contest, 
the true principle of dift'erence between the parties, we have to in- 
quire what becomes of the "revolution of 1800," the successful 
conduct of which made Mr. Jefterson a political demi-god, or at 
least a saint in the republican calendar? That has always been 
proclaimed by its leader and his abettors to have been a reformation 
in the action of the government, not in its principles — a. restoration ot 
bringing back of the policy of the government to a genuine con- 
formity with our institutions, from which, under the guidance of 
Hamilton's "cunning," Mr. Jefferson throughout asserts it was de- 
viating into monarchy. For example: — To James Sullivan Mr. 
Jefterson says, in a letter written about three weeks before Gen. 
Washington's last presidential term expired, deprecating his "pre- 
ponderant popularity, (Vol. III. p. 350,) "That influence once 
withdrawn, and our countrymen left to the operation of their own 
enlightened good sense, I have no doubt we shall see a pretty rapid 
return of general harmony, and our citizens moving in phalanx in 
the paths of regular liberty, order, and a sacrosanct adherence to 
the constitution." To Mr. Van Buren, at a much later period, he 
says, (Vol, IV. p. 407,) "It is vain then for Mr, Pickering and his 
friends to endeavour to falsify Gen. Washington's character, by 
representing him as the enemy to republicans and republican prin- 
ciples, and as exclusively the friend of those who were so; and had 
he lived longer, he would have returned to his ancient unbiassed 
opinions, would have replaced his confidence in those whom the 
people approved and supported, and would have seen that they were 
only restoring, and acting on, the principles of his own first ad- 
ministration." Here, not to notice the obvious absurdity of saying 
that Gen. W^ashington never departed from a point to which it is 
averred he would have returned, and that he would have replaced 
a confidence which he had never withdrawn, it is to be observed 
that the principles of his first administration are referred to as those 
of the constitution, or in the sanctimonious language of the preced- 
ing citation, "a sacrosanct adherence to the constitution." 

But if tliis is not sufficient to shew that the avowed object and 
vaunted effect of "the revolution of 1800," was not "a reformation 
of our institutions," but a restoration of the conduct of the govern- 
ment to the letter and spirit of our institutions, let us refer to Mr. 
Jefferson's account of it in his formal statement of the services, 
upon which he builds his claim to the privilege of selling his land 
to his fellow-citizens for more than it was worth. (Vol. IV. pp. 
434-5.) "If it were thought worth while to specify any particular 
services rendered, I would refer to the specification of them made 
by the legislature itself in their farewell address on my retiring 
from the presidency, February 1809.* There is one however, not 

* The value of this has been already indicated. See Letter XI. 



215 

therein specified, the most important in its consequences, of any 
transaction in any portion of my life; to wit, the head I personally 
made against the federal principles and proceedings during the ad- 
ministration of Mr. Adams. Their usurpations and violations of 
the constitution at that period, and their majority in both houses of 
Congress, were so great, so decided, and so daring, that after com- 
bating their aggressions inch by inch, without being able in the least 
to check their career, the republican leaders thought it would be 
best for them to give up their useless efforts there, go home, get 
into their respective legislatures, embody whatever of resistance 
they could be formed into, and, if ineffectual, to perish there as in 
the last ditch. All therefore, retired, leaving Mr. Gallatin alone 
in the House of Representatives, and myself in the Senate, where 
I then presided as Vice-President. Remaining at our posts, and 
bidding defiance to the brow-beating and insults by which they en- 
deavoured to drive us off" also, we kept the mass of republicans in 
phalanx together, until the legislatures could be brought up to the 
charge; and nothing on earth is more certain, than that if myself 
particularly, placed by my office as Vice-President at the head of 
the republicans, had given way and withdrawn from my post, the 
republicans throughout the Union would have given up in despair, 
and the cause would have been lost for ever. By holding on we 
obtained time for the legislatures to come up with their weight; and 
those of Virginia and Kentucky particularly, but more especially 
the former, by their celebrated resolutions* saved the constitution 
at its last gasp. No person who was not a witness of the scenes of 
that gloomy period, can form any idea of the afflicting persecutions 
and personal indignities we had to brook. They saved our country 
however." 

From this extract it is evident, that if Mr. Jefferson's explanation 
to Mr. Adams, in which explanation he describes his party as "the 
advocates of a reformation of institutions pari passu with the pro- 
gress of science," is to be believed, it must be admitted that this 
appeal to the favour of the Virginia legislature was "bottomed on 
corruption" and falsehood. In this he claims credit for "making 
head personally" against "the usurpations and violations of the con- 
stitution" perpetrated by the federal party, and describes himself 
as "placed at the head of the republican party, by his office of 
Vice-President." By the same token, Mr. Adams being President, 
was placed at the head of the federal party; so that while Mr. Jef- 
ferson is in one breath appealing to the legislature of Virginia, for 
a pecuniary recompense for his personal exertions in defending the 
constitution against change or violation, he confesses to Mr. Adams 
that he never made these exertions, but was on the contrary 

* This is modest, considering that Mr. Jefferson was himself the author of 
the Kentucky resolutions; that fountain of nullification which is now pouring 
its bitter waters over Carolina. 



216 

endeavouring himself to bring about a change in the constitution, 
against the "brow-beating" federalists who opposed all his attempts 
at innovation. 

He declares in his reasons for asking for this pecuniary gratifica- 
tion, that by being so patriotic as not to resign his place as Vice- 
President, in submission to the intimidating efforts of the federalists 
to make him retreat as he did before Arnold and Tarleton, and to 
resign as he did under the charges of Mr. Nicholas, "the constitu- 
tion was saved at its last gasp;" that is, saved from the "usurpations 
and violations," or changes, attempted by the federalists. But Mr. 
Adams is assured that this is entirely false, and that at this very 
time the dearest object of Mr. Jefferson, and the party at the head 
of which he was placed as Vice-President, was to effect a progress- 
ive and unlimited reformation in our institutions, avowing that 
they not only "advocated a reformation of institutions," pari /)assM 
with the progress of science, but maintained that no definite limits 
could be assigned to that progress." As these stories eat up each 
other as completely as the Kilkenny cats are said to have done, tail 
and all, it is unnecessary to dwell on them. But by way of shew- 
ing as a piece of natural history, that the father of both felt greater 
paternal tenderness for the mercenary and more malignant one, I 
refer to his letter giving an account of his authorship of the nullify- 
ing Kentucky resolutions. 

In that letter (Vol. IV. p. 344,) he tells Mr. Nicholas, the son, 
that he prepared those resolutions during the period in which as 
Vice-President he was making head against the federalists and de- 
fending the constitution from all change; and that Mr. Nicholas, 
the father, "proposed and carried them through" the legislature of 
Kentucky. He then adds — "I fear, dear sir, we are now" (the 
letter is dated December, 1821,) "in such another crisis, with this 
difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed 
in the present assaults on the constitution. But its assaults are 
more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and un- 
assuming. May you and your contemporaries meet them with the 
same determination and effect, as your father and his did, the alien 
and sedition laws, and preserve inviolate a constitution, which, 
cherished in all its chastity and purity, will prove in the end a 
blessing to all the nations of the earth." 

The other passage in this letter to Mr. Adams is that in which 
Mr. Jefferson says, "I well remember a conversation with you in 
the morning of the day on which you nominated to the Senate a 
substitute for Pickering, in which you expressed a just impatience 
under "the legacy of Secretaries which Gen. Washington had left 
you," &c. 

It is well known that towards the close of Mr. Adams's adminis- 
tration a rupture took place between him and certain of his leading 
political friends, and that in consequence of it Mr. Pickering, his 
Secretary of State, either resigned or was removed from office. It 



217 

seems that Mr. Jefferson, although "personally making head" as 
chief of one party, against Mr. Adams as leader of the other, seized 
this occasion of conversing with Mr. Adams, and of "sowing tares" 
between him and his other friends. This attempt had been made 
at an earlier date, as appears from a letter he wrote to Mr. Adams 
upon the occasion of his own probable defeat in their first contest 
for the presidency, (Vol. III. p. 338,) but which was deemed from 
its friendly professions so "mal apropos" (p. 348,) by Mr. Madison, 
that he refused to deliver it, and it never reached Mr. Adams's 
hands. That letter, dated the 28th December, 1796, is filled with 
expressions of personal and political esteem for Mr. Adams, and 
after a protestation of Mr. Jefferson's gratification at the ill success 
of his competition for the presidency, contains this observation: — 
"It is possible indeed that even you may be cheated of your suc- 
cession by a trick worthy of the subtlety of your arch-friend from 
New York, who has been able to make of your real friends, tools 
for defeating their and your just wishes." This "arch-friend from 
New York" was the great and glorious Alexander Hamilton, 
against whom Mr. Jefferson, having failed to excite suspicions in 
the mind of President Washington, was thus early endeavouring to 
instil jealousies in the breast of his successor. 

However, to return to this letter of explanation to Mr. Adams, 
it appears that it not only gulled but delighted him; for we find 
him in a fit of gratitude at a later stage of their revived correspon- 
dence actually crowning the gun-boat, dry-dock, and embargo Pre- 
sident as the Neptune of the United States, the father of the 
American navy I This too in a tone of indifference to the memory 
of Gen. Knox, and that delicacy which was due to his venerable 
relict and orphan son, which proves but too clearly that Mr. Jef- 
ferson's suggestion to Mr. Adams to abandon his former friends — 
"place himself farther from them than from us" — had produced its 
intended effect. Now although a pretty extensive paternity has 
been assigned to Mr. Jefferson, I believe it was never supposed, 
even in Virginia, where the sun ripens such various complexions, 
that he was "the father of our Navy"! This is the exclusive dis- 
covery of Mr. Adams, and he appears not to have revealed it until 
his ninety-second year, when the following occasion brought it 
forth. (Vol. IV. p. 357-.) 

On the 15th October, 1822, Mr. Adams made a communication 
to Mr. Jefferson of which this is an extract. "Mrs. Knox, not 
long since, wrote to Dr. W^aterhouse, requesting him to procure a 
commission for her son in the navy; that navy, says her ladyship, 
of which his father was the parent. *For,' says she, 'I have fre- 
quently heard Gen. Washington say to my husband, the Navy was 
your child.' I have always," adds Mr. Adams, "believed it to be 
Jefferson's child, though Knox may have assisted in bringing it into 
the world." The trivial and inconsequent remarks by which Mr. 
Adams proceeds to support this strange attribution — one, that 



218 

Hamilton's hobbj was the army, and the other, that he "had full 
proof from Washington's own lips," that he was averse to a navy — 
need not be discussed, inasmuch as a disposition to cherish one 
branch of military force, is no proof of aversion to the other, and as 
it is on record that Gen. Washington from first to last was in favour 
of creating a naval force, and in his last speech to congress recom- 
mended it thus emphatically: "Will it not, then, be advisable to 
begin without delay to provide and lay up the materials for build- 
ing ships of war; and to proceed in the work by degrees, in pro- 
portion as our revenues shall render it practicable without incon- 
venience; so that a future war of Europe may not find our commerce 
in the same unprotected state in which it was found by the pre- 
sent."* 

Besides, the object in view is only to show how willingly Mr. 
Jefferson could consent to divide credit with "a fool and blabber," 
even though conscious that he had no right to a particle of it, and 
provided he had only a widow and an orphan to contend with. He 
replies to Mr. Adams on the 1st of November, (p. 355,) "I have 
racked my memory and ransacked my papers to enable myself to 
answer the inquiries of your favour of October the 15th, but to little 
purpose. My papers furnish me nothing, my memory generalities 
only. I know that while I was in Europe, and anxious about the 
fate of our seafaring men, for some of whom, then in captivity in 
Algiers, we were treating, and all were in like danger, I formed 
undoubtingly the opinion, that our government, as soon as practi- 
cable, should provide a naval force sufficient to keep the Barbary 
States in order, and on this subject we communicated together, as 
you observe. When I returned to the United States and took part 
in the administration under Gen. Washington, I constantly main- 
tained that opinion; and in December, 1790, took advantage of a 
reference to me from the first Congress that met after I was in 
office, to report in favour ol a force sufficient for the protection of 
our Mediterranean commerce. I think Gen. Washington approved 
of building vessels of war to that extent. Gen. Knox I know did." 
He then goes on to reconcile his dry-dock system with this genera- 
tion of the navy, and daring from the dotage of his correspondent, 
as Jacob was when engaged in a similar scheme, Mr. Jefferson tells 
Mr. Adams, that when as his successor to the Presidency, he, Mr. 
Jeff'erson, reduced our existing naval force, and even sold some of 
the frigates, it was in compliance with "an act of Congress passed 
while you (Mr. Adams) were in office." As if it had not been 
done by his own party, and in compliance with his own instigations, 
calumnies, and creed. 

In a letter to Mr. Gerry, written at the very time this law for 
reducing the navy was passed, (January !26th, 1799, Vol. III. p. 
409,) Mr. Jefferson thus unbosoms himself. "In confutation then 

* Marshall, Vol. V. p. 715. 



219 

of these and all future calumnies, by way of anticipation, I shall 
make to you a profession of my political faith; in confidence that 
you will consider every future imputation on me of a contrary com- 
plexion, as bearing on its front the mark of falsehood and calumny." 
"I am for relying for internal defence, on our militia solely, till 
actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our 
coasts and harbours from such depredations as we have experienced; 
and not for a standing army in time of peace, which may overawe 
the public sentiment; nor for a navy, which, by its own expenses 
and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us 
with public burthens and sink us under them." 

Now here is a solemn confession of political faith, which displays 
the gun-boat system in its full deformity, and which, unless the 
Mediterranean sea can be transferred to the coasts and harbours of 
the United States, abjures from the commencement of the year 
1799, through all future time, the propriety of having a naval force, 
"suflBcient for the protection of our Mediterranean commerce." 
And although Mr. Jefferson assures Mr. Adams that in December, 
1790, he broached, and afterwards "constantly maintained the 
opinion," that we ought to have "a force sufficient for the protection 
of our Mediterranean commerce," Mr. Gerry was bound under the 
instructions contained in Mr. Jefferson's letter to him, to contradict 
this assurance, upon Mr. Jefferson's own authority, and to denounce 
it as an "imputation" against Mr. Jefferson "bearing on its front 
the mark of falsehood and calumny." 

So much for his "papers," whicli he declares though "ransacked, 
furnish him nothing." Let us now examine his "memory," which 
though "racked," he protests yielded "generalities only." On the 
l6th of January, 1811, it furnished with the readiest confidence to 
Dr. Rush, through whose instrumentality Mr. Jefferson was angling 
for the very coalition out of which this fraud against Gen. Knox's 
memory grew, the following statement: — "When the election be- 
tween Burr and myself was kept in suspense by the federalists, and 
they were meditating to place the president of the Senate at the 
head of the Government, I called on Mr. Adams with a view to 
have that desperate measure prevented by his negative. He grew 
warm in an instant, and said with a vehemence he had not used 
towards me before, "Sir, the event of the election is within your 
own power. You have only to say you will do justice to the public 
creditors, maintain the navy, and not disturb those holding offices, 
and the government will instantly be put into your hands." These 
stipulations, Mr. Jefferson says he declined making, when Mr. 
Adam$ rejoined, "Then things must take their course." Now this 
not only squares with his confession of faith to Mr. Gerry, but 
shows that both Mr. Adams, who anointed him with this flattery 
and false appropriation, and he himself while he was receiving the 
unguent, knew that it was entirely undeserved. 

As to Mr. Adams's part in this shameful and ungenerous pro- 



220 

ceeding, it is to be remembered ia extenuation, that he was at the 
time reduced by the weight of years to that grasshopper state in 
which Homer describes certain statesmen of Troy — and that more- 
over he does not profess to have "ransacked liis papers." — Mr. 
Jefferson, on the other hand, was, as he declares, his "junior in life," 
about eleven years, and had these letters to Mr. Gerry and Dr. 
Rush as well as others to the same effect, among the papers and 
press copies, which he declares he "ransacked." Whatever diffi- 
culty hje may have experienced at coming at them, there can be none 
in forming this conclusion, that although Mr. Jefferson profited by 
denouncing the navy and its advocates, in 1799, he was glad, in 
1822, to accept the praise of having fathered and "constantly main- 
tained it." But at this latter period, he had divided the world of 
American glory, (taking to himself the lion's share,) with Mr. 
Adams, and this important region was not to be left unoccupied. 
Whatever may be thought of their taunting indifference to the 
widow and the son of a brave and meritorious colleague, it will be 
confessed on all hands, that such another father as Mr. Jefferson, 
is more to be dreaded by our navy than all the fleets of Europe and 
all the storms of the sea. 

Gen. Lee, like Gen. Knox, was a friend of Gen. Washington, 
supported his measures, and valued his fame; had, like Gen. Knox, 
rendered great services, and received little thanks from his country. 
It is not surprising then that Mr. Jefferson should have been 
prompted by the same malignity which we find induced him to de- 
fraud and to stigmatise the memory of Gen. Knox, to defame and 
vilify the character of Gen. Lee.* 

[* It appears from a publication in the National Gazette of January 5th, 
1839, that Mr. Humphreys, who, as the builder of the frigate Constitution, is 
inseparably connected with our naval glory, thought it worth while to record 
his testimony against the correctness of that letter of Mr. Adams's, mentioned 
in the text, which attributes the paternity of the navy to Mr. Jefferson, and 
hostility to it to Gen. Washington. It was hardly necessary that the skilful 
hands of the venerable architect of our floating bulwarks should have conde- 
scended to the use of so insignificant an instrument as a pen for that purpose; 
but the document he has left is valuable as showing the zeal with which 
Washington pushed the creation of the navy, and the justness of his views in 
regard to it, and which led to its being (as Mr. Humphreys expresses it,) "«■ 
Hercules even in its cradleP The spirit with which Gen. Knox acted his part 
is also manifest, and corroborates his widow's statement, that her husband was 
the father of the navy. 

The act of Congress, under which our first and noblest frigates were built, 
— those frigates, which fought the navy into favour — was opposed by all the 
zeal and ability of the democratic party, and upon grounds which seem now 
almost incredible. But as no reader will doubt Mr. Tucker's testimony on 
this subject, and as it is distinct and short, I will transcribe it from his Life of 
Jefierson, (Vol. I. p. 478.) "It was resisted, (the bill for a naval force, — con- 
sisting of six frigates — to protect our commerce against the Algerines,) not 
only on the ordinary ground of its unfitness for the attainment of its object, 
but also because a navy was said to be contrary to the general policy of the United 
States, by involving a ruinous expense; by being incompatible with the dis- 
charge of the public debt, and by its exposing us to the hazard of collisions on 



221 



LETTER XVI. 



JOHN JAY. 

There Is associated with the name of this upright statesman and 
enlightened jurist, none of that military glory which belonged to 

the ocean with other naval powers, and eventually to war; and lastly, because 
it would even increase our dependence, by furnishing hostages, as it were, for our 
good behaviojir.^'a 

"As a substitute for this mode of defence, it was proposed either to purchase 
a peace of the Algerines, or to subsidize other nations to afford our commerce 
protectio7i."!! 

Mr. Tucker admits that Mr. Jefferson concurred with his party on this 
occasion, and that even "afterwards when war was declared against Great 
Britain, he was opposed to the erection of a naval force, alleging that it would 
be only building ships for the British, — but after their unexpected success he 
seems to have withdrawn his objections, and at least to have acquiesced in the 
national voice, then loud in its praise." But it would seem from a subsequent 
part of Mr. Tucker's own book, that he never did acquiesce in the national 
voice on this subject, but continued to the last, to prefer his own piratical sys- 
tem of gunboat and privateer warfare against England. For in December, 
1814, in a letter to Mr. Monroe, cited by Mr. Tucker, (Vol. II. p. 358,) he was 
for encouraging privateers as "a dagger which would strike at the heart of the 
enemy — their commerce. Frigates and seventy-fours," he adds, ''are a sacri- 
fice we must make, heavy as it is, to the prejudices of a part of our citizens.''' 
Even in the midst of our naval victories — nay, in a letter to Mr. Adams, of 
May 27, 1813, congratulating him upon them, as the early and constant advo- 
cate of wooden walls, he says, that his "epoch for aiming at a navy" will be 
when the fleets of other powers can be "brought so near to a balance with Eng- 
land that we can turn the scale." 

Mr. Tucker also records a conversation of Mr. Jefferson's just previous to 
the capture of the Guerriere, in which he maintained that "in providing a 
navy we should be only building ships for the British," (Vol. II. p. 331.) From 
all this it is difficult to conceive that neither Mr. Jefferson's memory or papers 
could, in 1822, furnish him the means of disavowing all claim to the paternity 
of the navy. 

It may be said by Mr. Jefferson's admirers, that I have, at least, shewn that 
he was remarkably consistent in his views in regard to the naval policy which 
the United States ought to pursue; and that therefore we must presume him 
honest, even if we suppose him mistaken, in them. But there is much to 
repudiate his claim even to that indulgence, which is usually accorded to 
honesty, and to shew that his consistency on this subject (certainly remarkable 
for him) was not the result of conviction, but of hostility to the federalists, 
which was too fixed and acrimonious in him ever to regard with the least 
favour a prominent measure of their policy. For the events of the war of the 
revolution, and the captivity of our mariners in Algiers, — the former painfully 
impressed upon him while Governor of Virginia, and the latter while he was 
minister to France, — had deeply convinced him of the utility, nay, the neces- 
sity, of a naval force, as his writings of those periods will shew. In his Notes 
on Virginia, (p. 291-2,) he says, "The sea is the field on which we should 
meet an European enemy — on that element we should possess some power," 
28 



9':)9 



Washington, Hamilton, Knox, and Lee; and which operating pain- 
fully on the memory of Mr. Jetierson, may account in some 
measure for his dislike and injustice to them. 



which he recommends to amount to thirty ships, eighteen of the line and twelve 
frigates; and his correspondence with our government while its ambassador 
in France contain similar views, but directed more particularly to the protec- 
tion of our iVIediterranean commerce. How comes it, then, that these views 
were totall}' changed the instant his country was about to adopt them, and that 
he should have advocated the suicidal policy of expending our money to foster 
the marine of other nations, or of the very pirates from whose prisons our 
citizens were calling for helpl There is but one answer to the question, and 
that will not establish that the spirit of party was less influential with Mr. 
Jefferson than the lessons of experience and the dictates of reason; or that he 
was less intent upon holding a high place in the government than upon seeing 
his country maintain one among nations. Nor will an opinion in favour of 
the sincerity of Mr. Jefferson's political professions be aided by an examination 
of his social conduct. A glaring instance of the want of that first of virtues 
is to be found in his conduct to his venerable correspondent, Mr. Adams. 
After Mr. Jefferson's reconciliation with him, his many flatteries and profes- 
sions of friendship, and especially after his reply to the expostulation of May 
29th, 1813, noticed in the text, Mr. Adams had certainly a right to feel assured 
that Mr. Jefferson would not treasure up any thing to wound his memory, 
when that should be all of him left upon earth. Yet we find in his friend, 
correspondent and admirer, Anas, bequeathed to posterity, as materials for 
history, after "a calm revisal," made so late as 1818, such entries as the fol- 
lowing, (p. 503.) "Langdon tells me, that at the second election of President 
and Vice President of the United States, when there was a considerable vote 
given to Clinton in opposition to Mr. Adams, he took occasion to remark it in 
conversation in the Senate Chamber with Mr. Adams, who, gritting his teeth, 
said, 'Damn 'em, damn 'em, damn 'em, you see that an elective government 
will not do.' He also tells me that Mr. Adams, in a late conversation, said, 
'Republicanism must be disgraced, sir.' " 

(P. 508.) "The President (Mr. Adams) has sent a government brig to 
France, probably to carry despatches. He has chosen as the bearer of these, 
one Humphreys, the son of a ship carpenter, ignorant, under age, not speaking 
a word of French, most abusive of that nation; whose only merit is, the having 
mobbed and beaten Bache on board the frigate built here, for which he was 
indicted and punished by fine." 

The reader will here be reminded of a remark in Burke's Reflections on 
the French Revolution, in reference to Dr. Price's contemptuous mention of 
"a few thousands of the dregs of the people." "You will smile here at the 
consistency of those democratists, who, when they are not on their guard, treat 
the humbler part of the community with the greatest contempt, whilst, at the 
same time, they pretend to make them the depositories of all power." In the 
last extract from the Anas it is evidently mentioned among the reproaches of 
Mr. Humphreys, that he was the son of a ship carpenter. Yet Mr. Jefferson's 
classical recollections might have reminded him that from the earliest times 
such artizans had been highly respected. Among the chiefs of the Iliad was 
one, 

"Who loved by Pallas, Pallas did impart 
To him the shipwright and the builder's art;" 

and even that "high-flying monarchist," Gouverneur Morris, treats the feeling 
which the chief of our democratists manifested towards the origin of Mr. 
Humphreys, as "among certain prejudices which affect weak minds, and are 
justly despised by the wiser and better part of mankind. I have met," he 
continues, (letter to Mrs, Burns, Vol. III. p. 234,) "with mechanics in the first 



223 

The mellow radiance of wisdom and virtue, of that mitis sapientia 
which habits of meditation, benevolence, and piety reflect upon the 

societies of Europe, from which idlers of high rank are excluded; and was 
once introduced by a coppersmith to the intimacy of a Duke." 

But to return from this digression, the reader must not suppose that these 
attacks upon Mr. Adams were accidentally left among the Anas, for Mr. Jef- 
ferson assures us to the contrary. In the introduction to them, he says: 
"Some of the informations I had recorded are now cut out from the rest, 
because I have seen that they were incorrect, or doubtful, or merely personal 
or private, with which we have nothing to do." Why then should such gossip 
as this about Mr. Adams have been preserved? Can it be pretended that it is 
of such importance as testimony against Marshall's Life of Washington, that 
the feelings and faith of friendship should have been disregarded to prevent 
its loss'? Supposing the anecdotes to be true, had not Mr. Adams merit enough 
to entitle a little sally of passion to be forgotten as well as forgiven'? And as 
to his appointment of young Humphreys to the humble office of bearer of 
despatches, it surely might find a sufficient excuse in the merits of a father 
who shaped the Herculean infancy of the navy"? What then can excuse Mr. 
Jefferson for such wanton attacks upon the memory of a great man, whom he 
professed to love, esteem and honourl 

Mr. Tucker confesses that Mr. Je^erson has been censured for committing 
to writing such conversations as form the staple of his Anas, but of course 
defends him. As a counterpoise to his authority, and better than an answer 
to his reasoning, I beg leave to refer the reader to a letter from Gouverneur 
Morris to Col. Pickering, to be found in Vol. III. at page 249, of Sparks' Life 
of him. Col. Pickering, it seems, wished to obtain for publication a statement 
of the substance of a conversation which Mr. Jeflferson held with Gouverneur 
Morris, when the contest for the Presidency between Burr and Jefferson was 
pending in Congress. But Mr. Morris replies, "Still it would, I conceive, be 
indelicate to bring forward publicly the conversation which Mr. Jefferson held 
with me, for he certainly could not have intended it for the public; and what- 
ever may have been, or may be, his conduct towards me or my friends, there 
is, I think, a sanctity of social intercourse among gentlemen, which ought not to 
be violated." 

But Mr. Jefierson has upon this, as upon many other subjects, left us his 
own condemnation for his own conduct. The sentence he pronounces upon 
the publication of the Cunningham correspondence is applicable to a large 
portion of his own Anas. His letter to Mr. Adams of October 12th, 1823, 
upon that event, as well as what he says of it in the oft-cited one to Mr. Van 
Buren, expresses strongly enough the general sentiment in relation to this 
sort of social treachery. "Indignation against the author of this outrage upon 
private confidence" — "would make it the duty of every honourable mind to 
disappoint his aim," are words in which Mr. Jefferson fairly and feelingly 
embodies the verdict of the world upon conduct to which the facts would make 
it applicable. 

If it be not too much presumption, I would suggest to the Professor, whether, 
instead of weakening the few barriers which, in this tattling and calumnious 
age, still guard the social board and the domestic fireside from the inquisition 
of the public press, it would not be better to inculcate the merits of silencel 
He knows they are not unsung in classic lore. 

"Est et fideli tuta silentio 
Merces" — 

says Horace. Euripides had sung before that "the crown of silence was fair 
in the eyes of a good man." Simonides has taught that "often does it injure 
to have spoken, never did it harm anyone to have been silent;" and in the 
beautiful fictions of Arabia, Nourreddin Ali inculcated upon his son "that 
silence is the ornament and safeguard of life."] 



224 

character, encircles the blameless memory of Mr. Jay. As a mem- 
ber of the revolutionary Congress, foreign ambassador, Secretary of 
State, and Chief Justice of the United States, he rendered import- 
ant services to his country, and established a claim to the everlast- 
ing veneration of his fellow-citizens. The ablest state papers 
issued by the old Congress, were written by Mr. Jay, and his essays 
in the Federalist are worthy of being there. 

Soon after negotiating the famous treaty of 1794 with England, 
he yielded to a sincere love of retirement and study, and having 
served his country efficiently and faithfully, dedicated himself in 
modest and noiseless seclusion, to learning, philanthropy, and de- 
votion. The evening of his life was long and quiet, and aftbrded a 
perfect contrast to that of Messrs. Adams and Jefterson. He neither 
belied his enemies, nor betrayed his friends; but practised and 
promoted that holy and consoling religion, which they seem to have 
made the subject of sophistical and deriding speculations, dissimilar 
only in being second hand and shallow, to those with which Milton 
perplexes the leisure of his impenitent and tormented spirits. 

'"Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy." 

But the virtues, abilities, services, and repose of Mr. Jay, were 
no security against the malevolence and detraction of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, which were constantly directed against the noblest objects. 
From the moment the latter had entrenched himself at Monticello, 
behind a rampart of diplomatic chicanery, philosophical pretensions, 
and rural resolves, he appears never to liave mentioned Mr. Jay 
without expressions of dislike and crimination. For example — In 
a letter to Mann Page (Vol. III. p. 315) he says, "Our part of the 
country is in considerable fermentation, on what they suspect to 
be a recent roguery of this kind. They say that while all hands 
were below deck mending sails, splicing ropes, and every one at his 
own business, and the Captain in his cabin attending to his log-book 
and chart, a rogue of a pilot has run them into an enemy's port. 
But metaphor apart, there is much dissatisfaction with Mr. Jay and 
his treaty." To Mr. Madison (p. 316) "Thus it is that Hamilton, 
Jay, &c. in the boldest act they ever ventured on to undermine the 
government, have the address to screen themselves and to direct 
the hue-and-cry against those who wished to drag them into light." 
To the same, (p. 324) "The whole mass of your constituents have 
condemned this work, (Jay's treaty) in the most unequivocal terms, 
and are looking to you as their last hope to save them from the 
effects of the avarice and corruption of the first agent, (Jay,) the 
revolutionary machinations of others, (Hamilton and his friends, 
who were endeavouring, Mr. Jefferson declares, to change the Re- 
public into a monarchy,) and the incomprehensible acquiescence of 
the only honest man (Gen. Washington) who has assented to it. 
I wish that his honesty and his political errors, may not furnish a 



225 

second occasion to exclaim 'curse on his virtues, thej have undone 
his country.' " 

Although these passages have been cited before, they were then 
introduced to shew either the earnestness of Mr. Jefferson's efforts 
to excite opposition to Gen. Washington, while he professed to him 
to be withdrawn from political discussions altogether, or to prove 
that while he professed to be his friend he was in secret directly or 
indirectly calumniating him. As in this instance his "virtues" are 
said to be of such an execrable sort as to be likely to ruin his coun- 
tryj and he is admitted to be "honest" exactly in the sense in 
which Anthony repeated "and Brutus is an honourable man." 

In regard to their bearing on Mr. Jay it is needless to multiply 
these citations, as they express one unvaried tone of malice and 
slander. But it is astonishing, even in Mr. Jefferson's "Writings" 
to find how unmedicable to the influence of time was this defama- 
tory spirit towards Mr. Jay. 

It appears that in the year 1823, a quarter of a century at least 
after Mr. Jay had withdrawn from public affurs, Mr. Adams at a 
Fourth of July dinner under the freshened recollection of ancient 
friendships, deviated so far from the articles of coalition which he 
had entered into with Mr. Jefferson, as, in the drinking the health 
of Mr. Jay, to observe, that accident alone had prevented his name 
from appearing among the signatures to the declaration of indepen- 
dence. This indiscreet and extra-conventional justice, did not 
escape the reprehension of Mr. Jefferson. In a letter of the 4th of 
September, 1823, replying to one from Mr. Adams of the 15th of 
August, which seems to have contained no reference whatever to 
Mr. Jay, he thus recalls him with gentle violence from this tendency 
towards truth. (Vol. IV. p. 379.) "I observe your toast of Mr. Jay, 
on the 4th of July, wherein you say that the omission of his signa- 
ture to the declaration of independence was by accident. Our im- 
pressions as to the fact being different, I shall be glad to have mine 
corrected if wrong. Jay, you know, had been in constant opposition 
to our labouring majority. Our estimate at the time was, that he, 
Dickenson, and Johnson of Maryland, by their ingenuity, perse- 
verance, and partiality for our English connexion, had constantly 
kept us a year behind where we ought to have been, in our prepara- 
tions and proceedings." 

The meaning of this evidently is, that Mr. Jay and others, who 
were like him partial to a renewal of our suspended connexion with 
England, had retarded the "labouring majority" (in which Mr» 
Jefferson classes himself with Mr. Adams) a year at least, in the 
declaration of independence and in preparations to maintain it. 
The inference attempted is, that it was by design and not by acci- 
dent, that he omitted to sign the declaration. Now as to Mr. Jef- 
ferson's labours in this majority, if we except the report on Lord 
North's propositions, for which he had previously got credit from 
the Assembly of Virginia, and his part of the declaration of indepen- 



226 

dence, which was subsequent to the season of delay he complains 
of, his own account of his services gives us one report only, and 
that solitary labour it appears, was thrown away, for the report was 
not adopted. (Vol. I. p. 9.) He never appears to have taken part 
in debate. But this of itself was no proof of his want of zeal in 
the causey for although he declares to Mr. Madison (Vol. IV. p. 
377) that he was by the accident of modesty silent on a particular 
occasion, and thus insinuates that he participated in the debates on 
others, it is well known that he was a most indifferent speaker, and 
at that time could not hope to be heard after such men as John 
Rutledge, Richard Henry Lee, and John Adams. 

But that he had been retarded a year in his wishes and exertions 
for independence by Mr. Jay or any body else, is a statement which, 
however bold the assertion may now appear, can be proved to be 
as false as any other in his "Writings." In a letter of the 25th of 
August, 1775, to John Randolph, who having held an office under 
the crown in Virginia, and taking no part in the Revolution, had 
gone to England, Mr. Jefferson, then a member of Congress, says 
(Vol. I. p. 150) 

"Dear Sir, — I am sorry the situation of our country should ren- 
der it not eligible to you, to remain longer in it. I hope the re- 
turning wisdom of Great Britain, will, ere long, put an end to this 
unnatural contest. There may be people to whose tempers and 
dispositions, contention is pleasing, and who, therefore, wish a con- 
tinuance of confusion, but to me it is of all states but one, the'most 
horrid. My first wish is a restoration of our just rightsj ray 
second, a return of the happy period, when consistently with duty, 
I may withdraw myself totally from the public stage, and pass the 
rest of my days in domestic ease and tranquillity, banishing every 
desire of ever hearing what passes in the world. Perhaps (for the 
latter adds considerably to the warmth of the former wish), looking 
with fondness towards a reconciliation with Great Britain, I cannot 
help hoping you may be able to contribute towards expediting this 
good work. I think it must be evident to yourself, that the minis- 
try have been deceived by their officers on this side of the water, 
who, (for what purpose I cannot tell,) have constantly represented 
the American opposition as that of a small faction, in which the 
body of the people took little part. This, you can inform them, of 
your own knowledge, is untrue. They have taken into their heads, 
too, that we are cowards, and shall surrender at discretion to an 
armed force. The past and future operations of the war must con- 
firm or undeceive them on that head. I wish they were thoroughly 
and minutely acquainted with every circumstance, relative to 
America, as it exists in truth. I am persuaded, this would go far 
towards disposing them to reconciliation. Even those in Parlia- 
ment who are called friends to America, seem to know nothing of 
our real determinations. I observe, they pronounced in the last 
Parliament, that the Congress of 1774, did not mean to insist rigor- 



227 

ously on the terms they held out, but, kept something in reserve, to 
give up: and, in fact, that they would give up every thing but the 
article of taxation. Now, the truth is far from this, as I can afiBrm, 
and put my honour to the assertion. Their continuance in this 
error may, perhaps, produce very ill consequences. The Congress 
stated the lowest terms they thought possible to be accepted, in 
order to convince the world they were not unreasonable. They 
gave up the monopoly and regulation of trade, and all acts of Parlia- 
ment prior to 1764, leaving to British generosity to render these, 
at some future time, as easy to America as the interest of Britain 
would admit. But this was before blood was spilt. I cannot affirm, 
but have reason to think, these terms would not now be accepted. 
I wish no false sense of honour, no ignorance of our real intentions, 
no vain hope that partial concessions of right will be accepted, may 
induce the ministry to trifle with accommodation, till it shall be 
out of their power ever to accommodate. If, indeed Great Britain, 
disjoined from her colonies, be a match for the most potent nations 
of Europe, with the colonies thrown into their scale, they may go 
on securely. But if they are not assured of this, it would be cer- 
tainly unwise, by trying the event of another campaign, to risk our 
accepting a foreign aid, which may, perhaps, not be obtainable, but 
on condition of everlasting avulsion from Great Britain. This 
would be thought a hard condition to those who still wish for re- 
union with their parent country. I am sincerely one of those, and 
would rather be in dependence on Great Britain, properly limited, 
than on any nation upon earth, or than on no nation. But I am one 
of those, too, who, rather than submit to the rights of legislating for 
us, assumed by the British Parliament, and which late experience 
has shewn they will so cruelly exercise, would lend my hand to 
sink the whole Island in the ocean. 

"If undeceiving the minister, as to matters of fact, may change 
his disposition, it will, perhaps, be in your power, by assisting to do 
this, to render a service to the whole empire, at the most critical 
time, certainly, that it has ever seen. Whether Britain shall con- 
tinue the head of the greatest empire on earth, or shall return to 
her original station in the political scale of Europe, depends, per- 
haps, on the resolutions of the succeeding winter. God send they 
may be wise and salutary for us all. I shall be glad to hear from 
you as often as you may be disposed to think of things here. You 
may be at liberty, I expect, to communicate some things, consist- 
ently with your honour, and the duties you will owe to a protecting 
nation. Such a communication among individuals, may be mutu- 
ally beneficial to the contending parties." On the 29th of Novem- 
ber he addressed a second letter to Mr. Randolph, in which he 
expressed himself as follows, (p. 152.) "It is an immense misfor- 
tune, to the whole empire, to have a King of such a disposition at 
such a time. We are told, and every thing proves it true, that he 
is the bitterest enemy we have. His minister is able, and that 



228 

satisfies me that ignorance or wickedness, somewhere, controls him. 
In an earlier part of this contest, our petitions told him, that from 
our King there was but one appeal. The admonition was despised, 
and that appeal forced on us. To undo his empire, he has but one 
truth more to learn; that, after colonies have drawn the sword, 
there is but one step more they can take. That step is now pressed 
upon us, by the measures adopted, as if they were afraid we would 
not take it. Believe me, dear Sir, there is not in the British Em- 
pire, a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain 
than I do. But by the God that made me, I will cease to exist 
before I yield to a connexion on such terms as the British Parlia- 
ment propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. 
We want neither inducement nor power, to declare and assert a 
separation. It is will, alone, which is wanting, and that is growing 
apace under the fostering hand of our King. One bloody campaign 
will probably decide, everlastingly, our future course; I am sorry 
to find a bloody campaign is decided on." 

At our Legation in Paris, it is considered at the present day, 
when a brisk commerce subsists between the United States and 
France, and when fast sailing packets are regularly interchanged 
three times every month, that, upon an average, three months is as 
short a time as can be counted on for sending a letter to the United 
States and receiving an answer to it. In 1775 and 6, when navi- 
gation was less improved and expeditious than it now is, when a 
war was raging between America and England, and when of course 
ordinary intercourse by vessels of commerce was cut oft', seven 
months was as short a time as could have been calculated on for 
Mr. Jefferson's letters to reach Mr. Randolph, for Mr. Randolph's 
getting access to the British Minister and closing in failure or suc- 
cess the overture confided to him, and for his answer communicat- 
ing the result of his negotiation to reach Mr. Jetterson. It will 
appear therefore that at least as late as the last of June 1776, Mr. 
Jefferson preferred reconciliation with England to national inde- 
pendence, "yielded to no man in the British Empire" in "partiality 
to our English connexion," had not "the will" to bring on a decla- 
ration of independence, and that if consequently he attached him- 
self before that period to the "labouring majority," who were intent 
on propelling us to independence, he was playing a double part, 
was rowing one way and looking another — was providing a title to 
pardon, if not patronage, from the crown, should our "English con- 
nexion" be restored, and to favour from the States, should their 
independence be established. And there is no room to doubt, as 
well from his greedy appetite for universal and incompatible credit, 
as from the double-faced proceeding we are now considering, that 
if from an abundance of Jeffersons and a want of Washington, or 
even of Hamilton, Knox, and Lee, we had succumbed to Great 
Britain, Mr. Jefferson would have put forward his claim to reward 
for pre-eminent loyalty with the same eagerness, (and he might 



229 

have done it with greater truth,) which, under the opposite event, 
he actually manifested in asserting a title to bold and leading 
patriotism, and in founding on it his application for a pecuniary 
privilege. 

But even should this plain inference be disputed, it must be 
conceded that if "partiality to our English connexion," and not 
accident, restrained Mr. Jay from signing the declaration, it was 
accident alone which induced Mr. Jefferson to sign it. It does not 
appear from any thing which ever proceeded from Mr. Jay's pen, that 
while he was a member of the Revolutionary Congress, he was 
corresponding as late as November, 1775, with a gentleman in 
London in the employment and confidence of the British Govern- 
ment, for the express purpose of preventing a declaration of inde- 
pendence, and of bringing about a renewal of "our English con- 
nexion." If he did at any time urge reflection or advise delay, in 
reference to the irrevocable step of independence, it was no doubt 
from motives of patriotism and prudence, and instead of retarding 
"preparations," was in favour of retarding "proceedings" until 
adequate preparations could be made to support them, and not with 
any view to the result of a private negotiation with the public 
enemy. 

It would indeed seem, as somewhat characteristic of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, that a sort of chastising infatuation directed his slanders, 
making him falsely ascribe to others, those very motives to the 
influence of which his conscience taught him, that he himself was 
but too liable. The repetition of this process, by exposing its 
iniquity, at last defeats'its purpose, and enables truth to overcome 
by its essential virtue the art of falsehood. In the present case, 
while it vindicates the many victims of Mr. Jefferson's injustice, it 
will leave upon his own name the stains which he endeavoured to 
attach to the memory of Gen. Lee, and to his illustrious friends, 
comrades, and compatriots.* 

[* Another instance of this will be found in an attack of Mr. Jefferson upon 
the reputation of Mr. Hooper, a revolutionary patriot of North Carolina, than 
whom, Mr. Jefferson says in a letter to Mr. Adams, "we had not a greater 
tory in Congress." Mr. Tucker (Vol. II. p. 421) regrets this heedless blow 
at the memory of a good and useful man, and, to mitigate it, explains the two 
senses in which Mr. Jefferson uses the word tory; and says that we must not 
understand it here as Mr. Jefferson habitually applied it to the federalists, 
"but only as expressing too protracted an attachment to Great Britain, and an 
unwillingness to .separate from her." And in this sense Mr. Tucker contends 
that it was applicable to Hooper, because we have his own declarations to the 
provincial Congress of North Carolina, in Hillsborough, in September 1775, 
that he did not desire "to shake off all connexion with the parent state," but 
his most earnest wish and prayer was to be restored to the state we were in 
before 1703. 

But we have just seen in the text, that Mr. Jefferson declared, so late as the 
29th of November, 1775, that there was "not in the British empire a man who 
more cordially loved a union with Great Britain than he did." So we have 
proof that his attachment to the mother country was protracted two months 
loneer than we have of Hooper's unwillingness to separate from her. There- 
29 



230 



LETTER XVII. 



RICHARD HENRY LEE. 



From what has been said and written of this distinguished man, 
it appears that from the commencement of our revolutionary strug- 
gles to their end, he was for patriotism, statesmanship, and oratory, 
regarded as the Cicero of his country. He was remarkable even 
"amidst the crowd of patriots" for a sensitive and impatient love of 
libertyj and this he encouraged and inflamed by a fond contempla- 
tion of those bright and melancholy examples, which the victims of 
ancient and modern tyranny have left in the characters of Phocion, 
of Cato, of Sidney, and of Russel. This gave to his classical and 
chaste elocution, a tone of depth and inspiration, which, set off as 
it was by a majestic figure, a noble countenance, and a graceful 
delivery, charmed while it roused or convinced his auditory. 
Though he never poured down upon agitated assemblies, a cataract 
of mingled passion and logic like Patrick Henry, yet he rivetted the 



fore, by the combined shewing of Mr. Jefferson and his biographer, the former 
was a greater tory than Hooper by two months, and therefore he ought to have 
said to Mr. Adams, "there was not a greater tory in Congress than Hooper, 
except myself." As he did not do it, however, it is kind in Mr. Tucker to 
have supplied the omission. 

But to return to Mr. Jay, the subject of the just eulogy of the text, nothing 
is better established than the truth of Mr. Adams' observation, that it was 
accident alone which had prevented his name from appearing among the 
signatures to the Declaration of Independence. For the Convention of New 
York, which had the right to do so, commanded his presence in that body. It 
was sitting at the White Plains when it received the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence from Congress, which was immediately referred to a Committee, of 
which Mr. Jay was chairman, and "he almost instanber reported the following 
resolution, which was unanimously adopted. 

"Besolved unanimously, That the reasons assigned by the Continental Con- 
gress for declaring these United Colonies free and independent states, are 
cogent and conclusive; and that while we lament the cruel necessity which 
has rendered this measure unavoidable, we approve the same, and will, at the 
risk of our lives and fortunes, join with the other colonies in supporting it." 

This interesting resolve is still to be seen in Mr. Jay's hand-writing, among 
the records of his native state, as we learn from his Life by his son, Vol. L 
p. 45. 

I had selected many extracts from the same work for insertion here, but I 
find myself in the dilemma of either citing too little to do full justice to Mr. 

Jay, or of increasing too much the bulk of this volume, which has already 
j^rown, under my hand, far beyond what I wished or expected. I beg leave, 
therefore, to refer the reader to the work itself, as presenting a faithful por- 
traiture of one of the wisest statesmen, purest patriots, and best men, that ever 
adorned any age or blessed any country.] 



231 

excited attention and enchanted fancy of his hearers, with a regu- 
lated flow of harmonious language, generous sentiment, and lucid 
argument, which, like the stream of a far-descended flood, had more 
of the force than the noise of a torrent. 

In his personal character, he was just, benevolent, and high- 
spiritedj domestic in his tastes, and too proud to be ambitious of 
popularity. 

Though not positively slandered by Mr. Jefferson, he is treated 
with a degree of injustice, that nothing but the force and pre-emi- 
nence of his merit can account for. For they were never rivals; 
Mr. Lee, as long as he remained on the public stage, always over- 
topping Mr. Jefferson in estimation, both in Virginia and in Con- 
gress; and he died about two years before Mr. Jefferson became 
Vice President. This superiority is manifest from the fact of his 
having been chosen one of the first delegates to the first Congress, 
from his name appearing on almost all the important committees of 
that body, from his having been selected by the Virginia delegation 
for the task of moving the declaration of independence; and it is 
accounted for by his passionate love of liberty, his uncompromising 
patriotism, his captivating eloquence, and his fame for wisdom. 

Mr. Jefterson assails his memory chiefly by detraction and impli- 
cation; by connecting his name sometimes with insuflicient praise, 
at others with disreputable circumstances. Thus, when he men- 
tions Mr. Lee commendably, it is simply as one undistinguished 
among a throng of popular leaders, as in Vol. L p. 5. "The lead 
in the house, on these subjects, being no longer left to the old 
members, Mr. Henry, R. H. Lee, F. L. Lee, and three or four 
others, whom I do not recollect, and myself, &c." and p. 7, "Our 
other patriots, Randolph, the Lees, Nicholas, and Pendleton, 
stopped at the half-way house of John Dickenson," &c. In short, 
if we believe Mr. Jefterson, Mr. Lee was sometimes his equal in 
ability, in zeal and boldness, never. Of course, in a list he re- 
membered to have read of patriots prescribed by the crown, he 
recollected his own name, but not that of Mr. Lee. In this spirit 
of disparagement, when he comes to observe that the draught of an 
address to the people of Great Britain, prepared by Mr. Lee, was 
not adopted by Congress, he says simply that it was "disapproved 
and recommitted." But when the same fate befel his own draught 
of a declaration of the causes of our taking up arms, he says, "it 
was too strong for Mr. Dickenson," and insinuates that Congress 
was so indulgent to Mr. Dickenson, that it was entirely with a view 
to gratify him, that his draught was preferred to Mr. Jefferson's. 
The fact however is, that all the papers prepared by Mr. Lee, were 
thought too highly tinctured with resentment and independence, 
for that early stage of the contest; — as is mentioned by Marshall, 
in regard to the draught of a petition to the king:* while, for Mr. 

* Vol. IV. p. 627. 



232 

Jefferson's high-mettled patriotism, we have nothing but the thread- 
bare authority of his own assertion. 

The following instance of his injustice to Mr. Lee is proof that 
his wit was less dramatic than malicious. (Vol. I. p. 8.) "On the 
24th, a Committee, which had been appointed to prepare a declara- 
tion of the causes of taking up arms, brought in their report, (drawn, 
I believe, by J. Rutledge,) which not being liked, the House recom- 
mitted it, on the 26th, and added Mr. Dickenson and myself to the 
Committee. On the rising of the House, the Committee having 
not yet met, I happened to find myself near Governor W. Living- 
ston, and proposed to him to draw the paper. He excused himself, 
and proposed that I should draw it. On my pressing him vi'ith 
urgency, 'We are yet but new acquaintances. Sir,' says he, 'why 
are you so earnest for my doing it?" "Because," said I, "I have 
been informed that you drew the address to the people of Great 
Britain, a production certainly of the finest pen in America." 'On 
that,' says he, 'perhaps. Sir, you may not have been correctly in- 
formed.' I had received the information in Virginia, from Col. 
Harrison, on his return from that Congress. Lee, Livingston, and 
Jay, had been the committee for that draught. The first drawn by 
Lee, had been disapproved and recommitted. The second had 
been drawn by Jay, but being presented by Governor Livingston, 
had led Col. Harrison into the error. The next morning, walking 
in the hall of Congress, many members being assembled, but the 
house not yet formed, I observed Mr. Jay speaking to R. H. Lee, 
and leading him by the button of his coat to me, 'I understand, 
Sir,' said he to me, 'that this gentleman informed you that Go- 
vernor Livingston drew the address to the people of Great Britain.' 
I assured him at once, that I had not received that information 
from Mr. Lee, and that not a word had ever passed on the subject 
between Mr. Lee and myself; and after some explanations, the 
subject was dropped. These gentlemen had had some sparrings in 
debate before, and continued ever after very hostile to each other." 

As the spirit of a dialogue like this, when committed to paper, 
depends entirely on the perfect accuracy of its relation; and as in 
the beginning of his memoir, (Vol. L p. 1.) Mr. Jefferson acknow- 
ledges the lapse of at least forty -five years, between the occurrence 
of this conversation, and the writing his record of it; I am to be 
understood as disputing the propriety of his fiction, rather than the 
truth of his statement. 

Its marvellousness is apparent, from at least three circumstances; 
the high-spirited temper of Mr. Lee; the proverbial gentleness of 
Mr. Jay, and the good manners of both. Here are two of the most 
distinguished men in the first Congress — that august assembly, every 
member of which felt the destiny of his country weighing on his 
shoulders; who had sparred so much in debate, as to become very 
hostile to each other; when all at once, one of them, the milder of 
the two, seizes the other by the button of the coat, and leads him 



233 

off' to a third member, whom he requests peremptorily to declare 
whether his captive colleague had not made a certain false state- 
ment to him. This third member, from a benevolent apprehension 
that the button-led gentleman may be caned on the spot, in the 
presence of "many members," hastens to reply, tells the angry in- 
terrogator "at once," that he had received no such statement from 
his unhappy colleague, and so far from it, that not a word on the 
subject had been exchanged between them. Can any thing be more 
incredible than this? Is it possible that Mr. Jay would have taken 
any member, towards whom he entertained a reciprocal hostility, 
by the button of his coat, and have led him oft" through the hall, to 
arraign him before another member, on a charge of falsehood? Is 
it probable, or even possible, that Mr. Lee would have suffered 
himself, in the same temper of hostility, to be thus snubbed and 
conducted? Does not the supposition violate every probability 
arising from human nature and social habits? Admitting that Mr. 
Jay did suppose Mr. Lee had reported to Mr. Jefferson that Mr. 
Livingston was the writer of the address in question, and that he 
resented this erroneous report as a personal injury, would he not, 
in proceeding to redress it, either have demanded of Mr. Lee 
whether he did or did not make that statement, or have applied to 
Mr. Jefferson separately, to know whether he had asserted that 
Mr. Lee did make it? But by Mr. Jefferson's account, the meek 
and conscientious Mr. Jay, neither applied to the person reported 
to have done him injustice, for an avowal or disavowal of the act, 
nor to the individual represented to have witnessed it, for a correc- 
tion or confirmation of the report, but seized the suspected perpe- 
trator of this enormous offence in the Hall of Congress, and led him 
up to the supposed witness. After finding himself entirely in the 
wrong, in exhibiting this indecent anxiety about his reputation, he 
makes no apology for his gross misbehaviour, but retires, breathing 
a fiercer spirit of enmity and resentment, than that in which he had 
so rudely advanced. 

Whoever believes this story, must also believe that both Mr. 
Lee and Mr. Jay, were strangers to the feelings and manners of 
gentlemen, although they were known to be two of the most polished 
and enlightened men in the United States. 

As there was probably some slight foundation for this anecdote, 
inasmuch as the spider must have something on which to suspend 
his web, it may be worth while to suggest what might have been 
the facts out of which the slander was concocted. The probability 
is that Mr. Jefferson receiving, as he says he did, the impression 
from Col. Harrison, that Mr. Livingston was the author of the ad- 
dress, had communicated it as a fact, to Mr. Livingston and to other 
members, and that in consequence of the more or less extensive 
prevalence of Mr. Jefferson's error in the matter, Mr. Jay felt him- 
self called on to justify his own previous statements in regard to it. 
For though he was a man of too much dignity to be strenuous in 



234 

laying claim to any little credit of this kind, he was also a man of 
too much purity to rest quiet under the suspicion of falsehood. To 
relieve himself from an uneasiness of this sort, let us see how, as a 
man of sense and good breeding, he was to proceed. Certainly not 
by flying headlong at Mr. Lee, and dragging him before Mr. Jef- 
ferson, without inquiring previously of either v/hetherMr. Lee had 
wronged him. This would have been exposing himself for no 
earthly object to the resentment and contempt of Mr. Lee, as well 
as to the ridicule of Mr. Jefferson. His mode of proceeding would 
have been either positively to repeat the assertion that he did write 
the address, or to obtain the testimony of some gentleman who not 
only knew, but would be admitted to know, that Mr. Livingston 
was not the author of it, and that he Mr. Jay was. As the Com- 
mittee, who reported the address, consisted of Mr. Lee, Mr. 
Livingston and Mr. Jaj, this competent gentleman could only be 
Mr. Lee or Mr. Livingston. Mr. Lee was not concerned in the 
advantage of the claim, while Mr. Livingston was to receive all its 
equivocal benefit. Delicacy and discretion, would thus concur in 
inducing Mr. Jay to prefer a resort to Mr. Lee. He, therefore, 
with the familiarity which their official relationship, and the nature 
of his object inspired, requested Mr. Lee to set his colleague right 
in this business, and thus to destroy the injurious rumour at its 
source, within the hall of Congress. Of course, when he approached 
Mr. Jefferson for this purpose, he was glad to have Mr. Lee at 
hand to refer to, and no doubt said to the former — "I understand, 
Sir, that you have asserted that the address to the people of Great 
Britain was written by Mr. Livingston:" — so that the haste with 
which Mr. Jefferson explained, was not so much out of any appre- 
hension for Mr. Lee's safety, as might at first sight appear. 

This version, which reconciles the affair to moral probabilities, 
derives additional verisimilitude from another circumstance in Mr. 
Jefferson's statement, that is, if that statement be so far admitted 
to be true, as to require refutation. He says, when he told Mr. 
Livingston he understood he wrote the address, adding, "I consider 
it a production certainly of the finest pen in America," that Mr. 
Livingston, instead of replying directly and clearly, "I assure you 
I did not write it," or "It was written by Mr. Jay," made this 
hesitating and equivocal answer — "On that perhaps, sir, you may 
not have been correctly informed." This equivocal reply could 
not fail to reach Mr. Jay, and to direct him more decidedly to refer 
to Mr. Lee. It would however be extremely unfair to the character 
of Governor Livingston, to impute to him, on ground so unsafe as 
Mr. Jefferson's memoranda, this unmanly and illiberal ambiguity.* 

[* I here hes; leave to refer to an extremely interesting letter from Mr. Jay 
to Mr. Adams, (Jay's Life, Vol. I. p. 380,) aiid extract from it the following 
paragraph to establish distinctly the position assumed in the text. 

"The subsequent occurrences you mention have not escaped my recollection. 
I was informed, and I believe correctly, that one person in particular of those 



235 

The explanation here offered involves, in regard to one point, a 
construction of Mr. Jefferson's language that may be disputed. 
He says — "I observed Mr. Jay speaking to R. H. Lee and leading 
him by the button of his coat to me." Now, admitting, for the 
sake of argument, his statement with respect to the temper and 
purpose of Mr. Jay at the time he was thus speaking to Mr. Lee, 
he must of necessity be understood to have been inquiring whether 
Mr. Lee had or had not "informed Mr. Jefferson that Governor 
Livingston drew the address to the people of Great Britain." Of 
this inquiry the necessary consequence was, that Mr. Lee returned 
an answer in the negative or the affirmative. Suppose then that he 
answered — "No, I did not inform Mr. Jefferson that Governor 
Livingston drew the address to the people of Great Britain." Is 
it possible to conceive that Mr. Jay would have instantly led him 
up to Mr. Jefferson and said "I understand, sir, that this gentleman 
informed you that Governor Livingston drew the address to the 
people of Great Britain?" Suppose, on the other hand, that Mr. 
Lee answered, "Yes, I did tell Mr. Jefferson so" — besides that 
there would then have been no occasion for the appeal to Mr. Jef- 
ferson, how could he have declared to Mr. Jay that he had not re- 
ceived that information from Mr. Lee, and that not a word had 
ever passed on the subject between Mr. Lee and himself.^ It is 



you specify, had endeavoured, by oblique intimations, to insinuate a suspicion 
that the address to the people of Great Britain was not written by me, but by 
Governor Livingston. That gentleman repelled the insinuation. He knew 
and felt what was due to truth, and explicitly declared it." 

This extract, besides relieving Gov. Livingston's conduct from every shadow 
of "illiberal ambiguity," "casts ominous conjecture" upon the whole anecdote. 
For from Mr. Jefferson's statement, Mr. Lee must have been "that one person 
in particular," against whom Mr. Jay's suspicions had been directed. If so, 
Mr. Jefferson's assurances must have dissipated them; and in that case Mr. 
Jay could not have believed, when he wrote the above paragraph, that he had 
been correctly informed upon that subject. If, on the other hand, we suppose 
that Mr. Jay's suspicions never rested upon Mr. Lee, we cannot believe that 
he accused him to Mr. Jefferson. From this dilemma there is no way of 
escaping, except by resorting to conjectures much more improbable than those 
which would impeach the accuracy of Mr. Jefferson's testimony. 

The most important service, however, which this letter renders to the 
memory of Mr. Lee, is to relieve him from a very unenviable position in which' 
he is'placed by an error in Mr. Wirt'.s Life of Patrick Henry. It seems that 
he did not even write the address to the people of England, on the reading of 
which, according to Mr. Wirt, "great disappointment was expressed on every 
countenance, and a dead silence ensued for some minutes." Indeed the whole 
passage is proved to be too full of error for any part of it to inspire confidence. 

Nor does this letter of Mr. Jay's indicate any of that hostility to Mr. Lee 
which Mr. Jefferson testifies to have been mutual in the breasts of these emi- 
nent men, but bears the marks of an opposite feeling. For it states that Mr. 
Lee, Livingston and Jay being placed on a committee to prepare a memorial 
to the people of British America, and an address to the people of G-reat Britain, 
"the committee assigned the memorial, which was first in order, and also 
deemed first in importance, to Mr. Lee,"— thus volunteering a piece of testi- 
mony in favour of Mr. Lee, which savours more of partiality than hostility.] 



236 

inconsistent with common sense to suppose that Mr. Lee would 

say, that he had made this fiilse and offensive assertion when he 
had not made it, and is besides incompatible wiih the recreant ex- 
hibition here made of him by Mr. Jefferson. Upon the whole then, 
it appears that the truth in all probability was, as I have already 
intimated, that Mr. Jefferson set about this false report, and was 
confronted by Mr. Jay with Mr. Lee in order to correct it, and 
that the confusion with which he was himself affected at the time, 
left a sting in his excessive self-love, which, in addition to his 
general intolerance of superior merit, festered into unforgiving 
enmity towards each of these illustrious men. 

The most flagrant evidence of his unfairness to Mr. Lee is afford- 
ed by the fact that in a letter to Mr. Wells, (Vol. I. p. 94,) he 
gives an account of the circumstances attending both the motion 
for a declaration of independence, and the adoption of the declara- 
ration itself, and though his letter covers six large octavo pages, 
never once mentions the name of Mr. Lee! 

It has been already intimated that Mr. Jefferson, who conceived 
God to be "either matter or nothing," was apt to employ the most 
devotional language in conveying the most incredible assertions. 
As examples, you may recollect that in presenting his portrait of 
Gen. Washington to Dr. Jones, and affirming his belief that Wash- 
ington was throughout his administration preparing his countrymen 
for a gradual and easy submission to monarchy, he swears down the 
disbelief of the Doctor in the following "sacrosanct" terms: — 
"These are my opinions of Gen. Washington, which I would vouch 
at the judgment seat of God." Again, in order to give a sort of 
importance to the ridiculous anecdote respecting Hamilton's opinion 
of the English constitution, he introduces it with the following 
solemn attestation. (Vol. IV. p. 450.) "In proof of this I will relate 
an anecdote, for the truth of which I attest the God who made me." 

So, in professing to relate circumstantially to Mr. Wells the 
proceedings in Congress on the motion for independence, he makes 
reference to a document containing, as he says, "Notes taken by 
himself at the time of what was passing on that memorable occasion;" 
and in order to suppress amazement at his omission of the name of 
the man who moved that ''memorable" proposition, he tells Mr. 
Wells, (Vol. I. p. 9G,) "I will give you some extracts from a written 
document on that subject, for the truth of which I pledge myself to 
heaven and earth." As no one at that time was likely to question 
the assertion of Mr. Jefferson, respecting an event with which he 
was known to have been familiar, that assertion founded on con- 
temporary notes, and that event unconnected with the policy of his 
administration or the conduct of his party, this unnecessary adjura- 
tion betrays a consciousness of defect in the statement placed under 
its convoy. Consistently with this inference, the first of his extracts 
commences in these words: — "Friday, June 7th, 1776. The dele- 
gates from Virginia moved, in obedience to instructions from their 



237 

constituents, that the Congress should declare that these United 
States are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," 
&c. In order to see at a glance the difference between this and a 
fair account of the same transaction, it will only be necessary to 
refer to Marshall, who after some preliminary observations says, 

••The following resolution was moved by Richard Henry Lee 
and seconded by John Adams." 

It is true that the Virginia legislature had instructed their dele- 
gates to bring forward a resolution to this effect, but it is in the 
highest degree invidious in giving an account of so great and peril- 
ous a step to suppress the name of the mover, and to depart from 
that particular so far, as to state that the whole delegation moved the 
resolution. 

The truth is, as there would seem to have been two successive 
delegations of that momentous duty, one from the Virginia legisla- 
ture to their delegates in Congress, and the other from the body of 
the delegation to Mr. Lee, if it was fair to attribute the motion which 
this bold and eloquent statesman actually made, to his immediate 
constituents, it was just to refer it from them to their immediate 
constituency, and to have said that on the 7th June, 1776, the 
legislaftire of Virginia made the motion. If Mr. Lee was but an 
agent for the transmission of this proposition, so were his imme- 
diate employers; and if the retrospection were justifiable in regard 
to him, it was also proper with reference to them. But this besides 
being obviously absurd, would have removed Mr. Jefferson from all 
connexion with this event, whereas the invidious plan which he 
adopted, while it obscured the name of Mr. Lee, reduced him to 
the gregarious equality of " Glcmcumque, Medontaque, ThersUo- 
cumque,^'' brought himself into immediate contact with the revolu- 
tion; a position which, by the help of his authorship of the declara- 
tion, would give him a figure in history, preeminent above all his 
associates. 

What would have been thought of the father of history, had he 
recorded the determination of the Athenians at the approach of 
Xerxes to desert their fortifications and man their ships, without 
mentioning the name of the individual who proposed that bold 
resolution.^ What should we now say of an author who should 
describe the battle of New Orleans, without mentioning the name 
of Jackson? He would be despised and execrated, although his 
injustice would not have surpassed that of Mr. Jefferson. 

If, as is probable, his colleagues united in confidin* to Mr. Lee 
the conduct of this great measure, it is proof of their conviction 
that from his political courage, his zeal and eloquence, he would 
introduce the motion with becoming spirit, and support it with 
adequate ability. His speech has not been preserved, but the ac- 
counts brought down by tradition represent it as worthy of the 
subject, and equal to the crisis. Had Mr. Jefferson been, as he 
was not, in possession of such oratorical advantages as drew the 
30 



238 - 

concurrence of his colleagues on Mr. Lee, and in consequence, 
been selected as the mover of the declaration of independence, it 
is impossible from the nature of his outstanding overtures to a con- 
fidential servant of the British crown, to conceive, that he could 
have introduced and supported the proposition with that confidence 
and animation which were requisite to propel it through the doubts 
and scruples of Congress. On the other hand, Mr. Lee, impeded 
by no conflicting engagements, with his understanding, bis heart, 
and his conscience, aU enlisted in favpur of independence, assumed 
the dangerous responsibility of proposing and urging, a measure 
which even now perplexes monarchs, and which — had it found no 
better supporters either in battle or debate than the man who, 
though a witness to his eloquence and patriotism, endeavoured to 
erase his name from the annals of that glorious event — would have 
converted the rostrum from which he spoke into a gibbet. For had 
all the members of Congress been as ineflicient as Mr. Jefferson, 
and all the governors of States as pusillanimous, not Washington 
himself could have saved the country. And in the event of tour 
re-subjugation, what member of Congress would have been singled 
out for royal vengeance.'' That one certainly, who greatly daring 
for the liberty of his fellow-citizens, had exhorted them to prefer 
the trials of an unequal war to the disgrace of servitude, and had 
urged them, in order to be free, to cast oft" their allegiance to an 
oppressive King. 

Besides, against this sort of distinction Mr. Jefferson was by no 
means unprovided. He could have pleaded with perfect truth that 
the step of independence having been resolved on, it mattered little 
by whom or in what terms the declaration was written; that in 
writing it he had only done what, had he declined the task, some 
other member would have done in very similar language; that al- 
though he was under instructions from the Assembly of Virginia, 
to move the declaration of independence, he had neither proposed 
that measure himself, nor after it was proposed, had uttered a single 
word in its support. That so far from desiring independence, he 
was sincerely anxious for a reconciliation between the two countries, 
and had rather be in limited dependence on Great Britain "than 
any nation upon earth, or than on no nation." That Mr. Randolph, 
an officer of the crown, could testify, that soon after he (Mr. Jef- 
ferson) got a seat in Congress, he had of his own accord solicited 
Mr. Randolph's intervention with the British government, with a 
view of bringing the revolted colonies again under his Majesty's 
lawful sway; and that as late as the last of the previous November, 
he had renfewed the same overture, repeated the same counsels, and 
avowed the same predilections, in a letter to Mr. Randolph. That 
it could not be imputed to him as a fault, that the advice he gave 
had been disregarded, and that such steps as were necessary to 
bring about a renewal of "our English connexion," had not been 
taken; and that if independence was subsequently declared — upon 



^ 239 

Mr. Lee, who, while he (Mr. Jefferson) was in daily expectation 
of learning from Mr. Randolph the result of his loyal overture, had 
the temerity to propose it — and not on him, should the consequences 
of that rash and audacious measure be visited. 

There would have been, it must be confessed, greater justice in 
this appeal to royal mercy, than in the claim he sets up to credit 
for a republican ardour, which not only distanced the measured_ 
pace of hisr»contempbraries, but outstripped the fervid patriotism of 
Rtthard H. Lee. 

As this anecdote about Mr. Jay and the button, represents Mr. 
Lee as little better than a poltroon, it affords occasion for yet an- 
other comparative view of the accused and the accuser, as tliey 
appeared in those times which are truly said to have "tried men's 
souls." 

During the war of the revolution, and, I believe, while Mr. Jef- 
ferson was Governor of Virginia, a British squadron which had 
been scouring the waters and wasting the shores of the Chesapeake, 
taking advantage of a favourable breeze, suddenly came to, oft' the 
coast of Virginia, where the majestic cliffs of Westmoreland over- 
look the stormy and sea-like Potomac. Mr. Lee was at that time 
on one of those visits to his family with which, from the permanent 
sittings of Congress, the members were of necessity occasionally 
accommodated. He hastily collected from the nearest circle of his 
neighbours a small and ill-armed band, repaired at their head to the 
point on which the enemy had commenced a descent, and without 
regard to his inferiority of means and numbers, instantly attacked 
them. He drove the party on shore back into their barges, and 
held them aloof, until the ships were brought to cover the landing 
with round shot and shells, which he had no means of returning. 
Then as he was the first in advance so he was the last to retire, as 
men who were with him have since his death often said. Several 
of the hostile party were killed or wounded, among them an officer 
whom they carried oft". One man they buried on the shore. In a 
grove of aged beech trees, not fa}- from Mr. I^ee's residence, rest 
the remains of this unknown but unforgotten foe. The belated 
homeward-going hunter, as he drags his tired steps along that proud 
and melancholy coast, hastens to pass this grave without a name. 
His comrade is awed into silence, his hounds vvith startled instinct 
follow clqse at his heels, he hears a deeper moan in the night Ivind, 
a more sullen murmur in the angry wave, and overcome with a 
pleasing terror continues his quickened pace, until the course of a 
limpid stream is crossed. Then he talks again with his companion^ 
tells of the men who when his sire was young, were the pride of 
Westmoreland j of Washington's renown in arms, of Lee's fame 
for eloquence; how the first went abroad to distant battles and high 
commands; how the second returned from solemn councils to his 
poor but hospitable hills, delighted to disperse among his neighbours 
the fruits of wisdom and benevolence. 



240 

.Such was the conduct of Richard Henry Lee, who was also 
"unprej)ared by his line of life and education for the command of 
armies." And such were the impressions left by his virtues on 
the minds of those who best understood his character, in the coun-. 
try* where he lived and died, but where, alas, not one of his name 
remains. 

The same tone of disparagement prevails in a letter of Mr. Jef- 
ferson to Mr. Adams on the 22nd of August, 1813, (Vol. IV. p. 
206,) in which he observes, "Marshall in his first volume chapter 
III. p. 180, ascribes the petition to the King of 1774, to the pen of 
Richard Henry Lee. I think myself it was not written by him, as 
well from what I recollect to have heard, as from the internal evi- 
dence of style. His was loose, vague, frothy, rhetorical. He was 
a poorer writer than his brother Arthur, and Arthur's standing may 
be seen in his Monitor's letters, to insure the sale of which they 
took the precaution of tacking to them a new edition of the Farmer's 
letters; like Mezentius, who " Morticu jungehat corpora vivis.'^ 

In the first place, Marshall in his fourth volume, p. 627, had cor- 
rected this error of his first, and in doing so, he observes that Mr. 
Lee's draught "was disapproved because it did not manifest suffi- 
ciently that spirit of conciliation which then animated Congress." 
An ostracism, of which Mr. Jefferson, as has been noticed, endea- 
voured to appropriate the credit to a rejected draught of his own. 

In the second place, it is somewhat strange considering the 
"vague" and "frothy" diction of Mr. Lee, and Mr. Jefferson's 
chaste horror of his rhetorical looseness, that it should have been 
for a long time supposed by a large and intelligent class of the 
community, that Mr. Lee was the real author of the declaration of 
independence, and that Mr. Jefferson had only reported it. This 
impression could hardly have existed, if the public had entertained 
the same opinion respecting Mr. Lee's style which Mr. Jefferson 
here expresses; for although the declaration of independence, in its 
published form, is faulty in point of style, it is neither "frothy" nor 
"rhetorical." Specimens of Mr. I^ee's style are before the world 
in the interesting compilation of his letters lately published by his 
grandson. These I have read, though not with particular reference 
to their diction; and they appeared to be written in a plain unpre- 
tending style, by a man, who well read in Classical and English 
lore, was more intent on his thoughts than his language, and to have 
that ease and directness of expression which is the reverse of vague- 
ness and froth. 

* Westmoreland, situated on the North East frontier of Virginia, which, 
though not one of our large or fertile counties, has given birth to a number of 
eminent men. Besides Washington, may be enumerated Richard Henry Lee, 
and his three brothers, Thomas, Francis, and Arthur, the late judge Wash- 
ington, and the late President Monroe. Of these distinguished citizens, all, 
except the last, are defamed, either by slander or detraction, directly or indi- 
rectly, in the "Writings of Thomas Jefferson." The free population of West- 
moreland has never exceeded, I believe, five thousand. 



241 

III regard to the style of his brother Arthur, which Mr. Jefferspn 
describes as so exceedingly indifferent, it is a little remarkable that 
I came across a manuscript of Arthur Lee's, some few years ago, so 
much like the declaration of independence^ both in substance and 
language, that I took occasion to mention it in a letter to ]\Ir. Jef- 
ferson, and at the same time to inquire, seeing that Arthur Lee's 
paper was of prior date, whether he, Mr. Jefferson, had not read it, 
before he prepared that celebrated document. His reply, as well 
as I recollect, was that he had never seen the paper of Arthur Lee, 
but that does not disprove the closeness of the resemblance. The 
"Monitor's letters" I never saw. It is probable they were dedicated 
to the discussion of some patriotic topic of strong but temporary 
interest, and that those who thought with Mr. Lee in relation to it, 
considered them worthy of being appended to the "Farmer's letters" 
— as Mr. Jefferson himself, in respect to a speech of Mr. Gallatin 
says, (Vol. III. p. 324,) "it is worthy of being printed at the end of 
the 'Federalist.'" Had this suggestion. of his been adopted and 
his malice thereupon imitated, it is to be hoped the sneerer at Mr. 
Gallatin's style, would not have been so awkward as to give the 
life of the literary compound to Mr. Gallatin, and its mortal dul- 
ness to the Federalist, a blunder which, by his trite quotation, Mr. 
Jefferson commits.* 

[* As" to the merit of Arthur's Lee's writings, it is sufficient to say that his 
Monitor's Letters, and those under the signature of Junius Americanus, were 
collected and published in cheap pamphlets, in which shape they went through 
many editions, were extensively circulated, and so much esteemed as to have 
been printed by several associations and public corporations in England; and 
that his "Appeal to the English Nation" was, for a long time, attributed to 
Lord Chatham. That fact is not only enough to repel the charge of "vague- 
ness and frothiness," but to stamp it with exactly the opposite character, as 
every judge of such matters will find it to be. As a sample of its nervous 
brevity, take this conclusion of a letter to Lord Chatham. 

"My lord, I have but one more word. When the acts of this country re- 
specting America are just, they will never be questioned; when they are unjust, 
theij will 7iever be obeyed. 

"Junius Americanus." 
(Life of A. Lee, by R. H. Lee, Vol. I. p. 21.) 

At page 209 of the edition of Woodfall's Junius, printed in Philadelphia in 
1813, will be found a letter of that celebrated writer to Wilkes, in which he 
says, "My American namesake is plainly a man of abilities;" and concludes, 
"I hope that since he has opposed me, where he thinks me wrong, he will be 
equally ready to assist me, where he thinks me right." 

Few will imagine that Junius could have been so much mistaken in the 
merits of a writer as to request assistance from one, who.se productions, when 
united to those of able authors, would but remind the reader of the cruelties of 
IVJezentius. On the contrary, even by the side of the letters of Junius himself, 
those of his American namesake may be quite as aptly placed as Pedasus was 
joined to the. car of Achilles with Xanthus and Balius, 

"O; X.XI fifJiToc 'ii>iv iTTib' ITTTTol; ufiatvaTS/cr/. 

Who being mortal, matched the immortal steeds. 
Nor, when in 1775, the city of London sent to the king and parliament a 



242 

From what has been already observed it is not easy to suppose 
that in regard to style, Mr. Jefterson was qualitied to be a critic or 
a preceptor. His own is to be admired neither for purity nor 
strength, refinement nor felicity. Its texture is the same fur letters 
and dissertations, for familiar and diplomatic correspondence; and 
it is as mechanical and monotonous as the music of a hand organ. 
There is not the slighest variety in his diction, neither the elegaa;it 
choice of art, nor the easy carelessness of nature. If it ever glows 
with animation from the heart, the animation springs from the two 
most odious feelings, vanity and malice. In the four volumes of his 
writings it would be difficult to find a sentence beautifully simple, 
tersely energetic, richly metaphorical, powerfully expanded, or 
nobly elevated. A diplomatic manner and a French tournure, 



remonstrance against the colonial measures of the ministry, is it probable that 
they would have selected to compose that dooument any other than a writer 
whose reputation was well established'? Yet they appointed Mr. Lee for that 
purpose, and "the style and spirit of the remonstrance were greatly admired, 
and it was extensively circulated throughout the kingdom.'' — (Life of A. Lee, 
Vol. I. p. 46.) 

Indeed, some of the happiest hits to be found in any one's writings are to be 
met with in his. For instance, he is urging the great Frederick to adopt, for 
his conduct towards this country, a precedent furnished by fhat of Henry IV. 
of France towards Charles, Duke of Sudermania, after he procured himself 
toi)e crowned king of Sweden; and concludes his reference to this illustrious 
authority with the following happy compliment: "The example of Henry 
the Great is worthy of a prince who no less merits the title." 

But skill as a writer, thouglrimportant to Mr. Lee as arming him with an 
eifective weapon to be iised in the service of his country, furnishes the smallest 
part of his title to its gratitude. His zeal, perseverance, efficiency and disin- 
terestedness, are the great qualities which entitle him to the highest praise. 
The spirit with which he entered upon his public career is evinced in the 
following extract from a letter of liis to his friend, the Earl of Shelburne, 
afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne. 

Paris, December 23f/, 1776. 

"My Lord, — A very few hours after my last letter to your-Lordship brought 
me the desire of my country that I should serve her in a public capacity. 
Your Lordship thinks too well of me, I hope, to suppose I could hesitate a 
moment. In fact, almost the same minute saw me bid adieu, perhaps forever, 
to a country where I had fixed my fortunes, and to a people whom I most 
respected, and could have loved. But the first object of my life is my country 
— the first Avish of my heart is public liberty. I must see, therefore, the liber- 
ties of my country established, or perish in her last struggle." 

To the ability with which he discharged his public duties, T will cite the 
testimony of Samuel Adams, extracted from a letter of his to Mr. Warren. 
"Now you tell me their art is to prejudice the people against the Lees, and to 
propagate that I am a friend to them., How trifling is this! Am I account- 
able to the people for my opinions of menl If I have found from long and 
intimate acquaintance with those gentlemen that they are and have been, from 
the beginning of this contest, among the most able and zealous defenders of 
the rights of America and mankind, shall I not be their friend"? I will avow 
my friendship to them in the face of the world. As an inhabitant of Massa- 
chusetts Bay, I should think myself ungrateful not to esteem Arthur Lee most 
highly for his voluntary services to that State, in times of her greatest need, to 
the injury of his private interest, and at the risk of his life."] 



243 

which completely blight the spirit of the English idiom, are the 
peculiar properties of his style. And these, together with its me- 
chanical and uniform structure, account for the fact, that while 
small parcels of it came to be much admired by the public, the 
wholesale quantity now exposed, proves distressing to the least 
fastidious reader. 

^Mr. Lee, who is confessed to have been a more eloquent man 
than Mr. Jefterson, was also a better scholar; and it is more than 
probable would have appeared as a professed writer, as he did in 
the character of patriot and statesman, though vastly his inferior in 
pretension, greatly his superior in merit. 



LETTER XVIII. 



JOHN MARSHALL. 



Except Alexander Hamilton, no man living or dead, was ever 
visited by more of Mr. Jefferson's abuse, than the present Chief 
Justice of the United States, and no man was ever more honoured 
by it. For it not only served to signalize his fellowship with those 
great and magnanimous men, whose actions have just been vindi- 
cated, but it furnished opportunity for the most perfect triumph that 
ever was achieved by the unexerted strength of merit, over the un- 
assuaged rancour of injustice. \ 

As statesman, diplomatist, author, or Judge, for more than a 
quarter of a century, he was the constant theme of Mr. Jefferson's 
obloquy, in all the forms in which it could be distributed; oral or 
written, official or private. And although he made no resistance 
to these injuries, attempted no retaliation, manifested no resent- 
ment; was lauded by no dependants, and supported by no dominant 
party; stood lofty and alone, the last official survivor of his class; 
while his enemy had mobs, and demagogues, and legislatures, to 
reverberate his hints and enforce his denunciations; yet at the time 
of Mr. Jeflerson's death, there w:as scarcely a man even of his own 
party, who believed a single word he had ever uttered to the pre- 
judice of John Marshall. A shade of doubt was perhaps kept up 
by a threat which his friends gave out mysteriously, purporting that 
he was to leave a posthumous refutation of the 5th volume of the 
life of Washington, and an overthrow of its author's political and 



244 

literary character. But no sooner appeared the Jeffersoniana, which 
are solemnly recommended to the world as "testimony" against 
Marshall's work, than the threat became harmless and contemptible. 
For it is incontestably true, that a mass of more inert folly and in- 
noxious though putrescent slander, is not to be found any where in 
print, than is formed by these pretended historical materials. 

They consist for the most part of such speeches as Mr. Jefferson 
chose to put into his own mouth, or into the mouths of men he 
either dreaded or hated — and resemble very much in their fabrica- 
tion, the dialogue appended by Basil Hall to his travels in the 
United States, in which he appropriates all the smart observations 
to himself, and the silly ones to his republican interlocutor. 

In the mode in which Mr. Jefferson's Jinas have made their ap- 
pearance, there is one circumstance likely to afford merriment at 
least. It is that on various occasions when allusion to Marshall 
is made, a hiatus is left in the text in order either to grant him the 
favour of a post mortem dissection, or else, as in the case of Gen. 
Lee, in the hope that a dead subject may prove more tractable to a 
bungling operator. Whatever be the motive, this sword of ivoocl 
is still suspended over Marshall's reputation, which, it seems, while 
his life is spared, is not to be completely destroyed. 

And here it is proper to remark, that inasmuch as Mr. Jefferson 
preserved his ^nas for the express purpose of impugning the fair- 
ness of Marshall's historical narrative with respect to him and his 
party, it may be accounted unjust and illogical in controverting Mr. 
Jefferson's statements to rely on Marshall's disputed authority. I 
was sensible of this apparent incompetency as it regarded the Life 
of "Washington, but upon perusing the "Writings" of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, I was at once convinced that it was only apparent; and that if 
a work so authentic, clear, and impartial as Marshall's could receive 
corroboration from any source, it could only be from so ostentatious, 
angry, and impotent an attack, as this posthumous one of Mr. Jef- 
ferson. 

Specimens of the Anas have already been submitted to your 
notice, some from among those that profess to relate occurrences 
which Mr. Jefferson witnessed, and remarks that he made or heard, 
and some from those which profess to retail the reports of others. 
Of the former class was the Julius Cassar anecdote of Hamilton, 
while to the latter chiefly belongs the following one, it being a fair 
sample of the positive tone in which they are delivered, and of the 
quantity of truth they contain. (Vol. IV. p. 515.) "February 12th, 
1801, Edward Livingston tells me that Bayard applied to-day or 
last night to Gen. Samuel Smith, and represented to him the expe- 
diency of coming over to the States who vote for Burr; that there 
was nothing in the way of appointment which he might not com- 
mand, and particularly mentioned the secretaryship of the navy. 
Smith asked him if he was authorized to make the offer. He said 
he was authorized. Smith told this to Livingston, and to Wilson 



245 

C. Nicholas, who confirms it to me. Bayard likewise tempted 
Livingston, not by ottering him a particular office, but by represent- 
ing to him, his, Livingston's intimacy and connexion with Burr, 
that from him he had every thing to expect if he came over to him." 
At page 521, this statement is referred to by way of adding to its 
authenticity, as support to another. However, soon after the Jef- 
ferson "Writings" were published, and about fourteen years after 
Bayard's death, Mr. Clayton, Senator from Delaware, jealous of 
the honour of his State, and justly confident in that of his great pre- 
decessor* called on Mr. Livingston and Gen. Smith, Senators, the 
one from Maryland, the other from Louisiana, in a full sitting of 
the Senate of the United States, to declare whether this statement 
of Mr. Jefferson in regard to Mr. Bayard, was true or false. These 
gentlemen thus openly interrogated, though both were partizans of 
Mr. Jefferson, and had voted for him in preference to Burr, felt 
themselves compelled to confess that they were unable to confirm 
the statement of Mr. Jefferson, as they had not the least knowledge 
of the circumstances it mentioned, either in regard to Mr. Bayard 
or to themselves. 

To give a brief and subdued account of Mr. Jefferson's imputa- 
tions against Marshall, it is sufficient to say, that he repeats the 
following allegations, viz: that as a statesman, Marshall is a mo- 
narchist; as a diplomatist, a mountebank and impostor; as an au- 
thor, false and libellous; and as a Judge, partial and corrupt. This 
last tendency of his vilification was so strong, that in his annual 
message to Congress of December, 1807, he recommended indi- 
rectly the impeachment of the Chief Justice. 

As to the political creed of Marshall, it is known to have coincided 
with that of Washington and of the patriotic statesmen who sup- 
ported his administration. His reputation for historical truth and 
candour, has received, as was observed, all the honour of Mr. Jef- 
ferson's invective, and may now be considered more solid than brass 
or marble. It is as if a treatise by Hannibal were found confirming 
by ineffectual denials or falsified contradictions every statement in 
Livy respecting the characters of Fabius, Marcellus, Claudius, and 
Scipio, and the events of the second Punic war. 

His character as a minister of justice, it would not become so 
humble a pen as mine to vindicate, or even to commend. The in- 
definite embargo Congress, although unkennelled, and hallooed, did 
not dare to approach its tranquil majesty. The leaders growled 
hatefully around, the blabbers yelped at a distance; but the 'hunter 
of men' had to retire successless and chagrined. 

As a diplomatist, Marshall had but a short career, and was em- 
ployed only upon a special mission. The nature of this has been 
so little inquired into, that of the thousands who at first believed, 

* Mr. Bayard was a citizen of Delaware, and for a long time a Senator from 
that State. 
31 



246 

and finally discredited, the imputations ot Mr. Jeiierson, not ten 
individuals understood the occasion of them, deriving their first 
impressions from political infatuation with regard to Mr. Jeft'erson, 
and owing their relief from them to the irresistible but silent force 
of Marshall's integrity. 

You will recollect that the lever with which Mr. Jefferson over- 
turned the federal party, was the charge that they were manoeuv- 
ring to introduce a monarchy, modelled on the forms of the British 
government, and in close alliance with, if not in actual resubjuga- 
tion to, it. A direct consequence, in his tactics, was, the allegation 
that their policy was always favourable, and sometimes subservient, 
to Great Britain. This imputation was of course attached to every 
measure which was intended to resist the belligerent injustice, or 
arrogant amity of France. And in order- to enjoy its full effect, 
Mr. Jefferson, as has been already mentioned, withdrew from the 
cabinet in 1793, fearing that the necessities of his office would ex- 
pose him to the slanders he v/as instigating against his colleagues 
and his chief. 

These professions and views, it will be readily perceived, caused 
the political ascendancy at which he was aiming, to depend on his 
success in making his fellow-citizens believe, that all our policy 
with regard to France was wrong; and e converso, that her conduct 
towards us, if not right, was at least excusable. So that having 
incessantly denied or extenuated her outrages at the risk of his 
political prospects, it came to pass that in the course of their pro- 
gressive enormity, he was compelled, either to retract a whole chain 
of false assertions, or to follow them up by still more daring fabri- 
cations. The stricture of this alternative upon his ambition became 
almost spasmodic, when the delirious atrocities of the French di- 
rectory, seemed to increase in a higher ratio than even his capacity 
for misrepresentation could keep pace with, and threatened to 
render war between France and the United States inevitable, by 
making the apologists of France open friends of our public enemy. 
For had this event happened, it could not have failed to pull down 
the ladder of fabrications on which Mr. Jeft'erson had almost reached 
the pinnacle of powei'. 

In a case like this, Mr. Jefferson was not a man to hesitate. — 
He commenced, accordingly, a new series of inventions and mis- 
representations in regard to the conduct of the French and Ameri- 
can governments, and in reference to the ministers employed by 
the latter. From among these Marshall was singled out as the 
object of peculiar slander, which never relenting in violence, was 
terminated only by its author's death. 

The manner in which Marshall and his colleagues, Gen. Pinckney 
and Mr. Gerry, were received, or rather insulted by the French 
government, is described by Marshall in his Life of Washington.* 

* Vol. V. pp. 741, 42, 43, 44. 



247 

It was represented in very similar terms in the despatclies of the 
mission to their government, and by exciting general indignation 
among the people, who cried out, "millions for defence, not a cent 
for tribute," shook the whole frame work of popularity which Mr. 
Jefferson, as the leader of the French party in the United States 
had acquired. 

It is not within the scope of this undertaking to explain the state 
of our differences with France, at that time; to trace them to their 
origin, or to follow them out to their close. The undertaking may 
perhaps be forced upon me hereafter. If it should, I shall be able 
not only to assign a proper degree of praise to the conduct of Mar- 
shall, but to show that as Mr. Jefferson, in the pursuit of power, 
had endeavoured to disorganize the country at home, so he strove, 
for the same object, to humiliate it abroad;* and that since the 
United States became an independent nation, its rights and honour 
have never been so shamefully abandoned by any citizen, as they 
were on occasion of the outrages of France, by the very man who 
slandered Gen. Lee, and calumniated Chief Justice Marshall; ac- 
cused Hamilton of treasonable designs, and reproached Washington 
with having "truckled servilely to England." 

For the present, after referring the admirers of Mr. Jefferson's 
patriotism, to this letter of diplomatic counsel to Mr. Gerry, placed 
at the foot of the page,t it will be sufficient to remind you, that 

[* Gouverneur Morris treats Mr. Jefferson's conduct very humorously in a 
letter to Mr. Parisli, which see in Vol. III. p. 176, of his life by Sparks.] 

Philadelphia, June 31, 1797. 
+ My Dear Friend, — It was with infinite joy to me, that you were yesterday 
announced to the Senate, as Envoy Extraordinary, jointly with General 
Pinckney and Mr. Marshall, to the French republic. It gave me certain as- 
surances that there would be a preponderance in the mission, sincerely dis- 
posed to be at peace with the French government and nation. Peace is un- 
doubtedly at present the first object of oar nation. Interest and honour are 
also national considerations. But interest, duly weighed, is in favour of peace 
even at the expense of spoliations past and future; and honour cannot now be 
an object. The insults and injuries committed on us by both the belligerent 
parties, from the beginning of 1793 to this day, and still continuing, cannot 
now be wiped off by engaging in war with one of them. As there is great 
reason to expect this is the last campaign in Europe, it would certainly be 
better for us to rub through this year, as we have done through the four pre- 
ceding ones, and hope that, on the restoration of peace, we may be able to 
establish some plan for our foreign connexions more likely to secure our 
peace, interest, and honour, in future. Our countrymen have divided them- 
selves by such strong affections, to the French and the English, that nothing 
will secure us internally but a divorce from both nations; and this must be the 
object of every real American, and its attainment is practicable without much 
self-denial. But, for this, peace is necessary. Be assured of this, my dear Sir, 
that if we engage in a war during our present passions, and our present weak- 
ness in some quarters, our Union runs the greatest risk of not coming out of 
that war in the shape in which it enters it. My reliance for our preservation 
is in your acceptance of this mission. I know the tender circumstances which 
will oppose themselves to it. But its duration will be short, and its reward 
long. You have it in your power, by accepting and determining the character 
of the mission, to secure the present peace and eternal union of your countr}\ 



248 

Marshall in his historical account of this mission, observes that both 
the French Minister ot foreign affairs, Talleyrand, anil certain un- 
official, though real agents of the French Government, demanded 
as a preliminary to negociation, the advance of a large sum of 
money by the United States to France, and that in the despatches 
of himself and his colleagues to their own government, it was stated 
that the written communications of these unofficial agents requiring 
this advance of money, or in lieu of it a douceur of fifty thousand 
pounds to Talleyrand, were signed with the letters X. Y. Z. 

These despatches Mr. Jefferson insists were written by Marshall 
for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States as to 
the disposition and conduct of the French Government, and he 
describes them and their author in language of which the following 
quotations afford fair specimens. In a letter of the 11th of October, 
1798, to Stephens T. Mason, a Senator from Virginia, (Vol. III. p. 
402,) he calls the indignation produced by these demands of Talley- 
rand "the X. Y. Z. fever." In one to John Taylor, of the 26th of 
November, (p. 403,) "the X. Y. Z. <Jelusion." To Mr. Gerry, 
(p. 410,) he says, the January following "when most critically for 
the government the despatches of the 22nd of October, prepared by 
your colleague Marshall, with a view to their being made public, 
dropped into their laps." To Edmund Pendleton, a few days after, 
he writes on the same subject, and observes, (p. 414,) "You know 
the wicked use that has been made of the French negociation; and 
particularly, the X. Y. Z. dish cooked up by (a set of asterisks put 
Cor Marshall) where the swindlers are made to appear as the French 
government." To Kosciusko (then in Paris) he writes on the 21st 
of the same month, (p. 422,) "The wonderful irritation produced 
in the minds of our citizens by the X. Y. Z. story, has in a great 
measure subsided." To Gideon Granger, afterwards his Post- 



If you decline, on motives of private pain, a substitute may be named who has 
enlisted his passions in the present contest, and by the preponderance of his 
vote in the mission may entail on us calamities, your share in which, and your 
feelings, will outweigh whatever pain a temporary absence from your family 
could give you. The sacrifice will be short, the remorse would be never-end- 
ing. Let me then, my dear Sir, conjure your acceptance, and that you will, 
by this act, seal the mission with the confidence of all parties. Your nomina- 
tion has given a spring to hope, which was dead before. 

I leave this place in three days, and therefore shall not here have the plea- 
sure of learning your determination. But it will reach me in my retirement, 
and enrich the tranquillity of that scene. It will add to the proofs which have 
convinced me that the man who loves his country on its own account, and not 
merely for its trappings of interest or power, can never be divorced from it, 
can never refuse to come forward when he finds that she is engaged in dangers 
which he has the means of warding oif. Make then an effort, my friend, to. 
renounce your domestic comforts for a few months, and reflect that to be a 
good husband and good father at this moment, you must be also a good citizen. 
With sincere wishes for your acceptance and success, I am, with unalterable 
esteem, dear sir, your affectionate friend and servant, 

Th; JfiFFERSON. 



249 

master General, August the 13th, 1800, (p. 438,) "In this state" 
(Virginia) "a few persons were deluded by the X. Y. Z. duperies." 
To Ur. Rush, September 23d, (p. 441,) "The delusion into which 
the X. Y. Z. plot showed it was possible to push the people." 
Alter repeating on various occasions these or similar sneers and 
calumnies, we find him solemnly bequeathing them for historical 
truths to posterity in the introduction to his Jinas. (Vol. IV. p. 452.) 
Speaking of the federalists he there says, "The horrors of the French 
Revolution then reigning aided them mainly, and using that as a 
raw head and bloody bones, they were enabled by their stratagems 
of X. Y. Z. in which Marshall" (here asterisks again are used) 
"was a leading mountebank, &c." 

Here we have the statements of Chief Justice Marshall and of 
General Pinckney on one side, in respect to transactions in which 
they were personally engaged, and on the other the contradiction 
of Mr. Jefferson, who was three thousand miles from the scene of 
these transactions. Putting aside the motives by which these 
parties were influenced, and their comparative qualifications, it 
must be admitted that if an impartial inquirer could hesitate be- 
tween them, his belief would be determined to that statement, 
whichever it might be, which the testimony of a third party, com- 
petent and disinterested, should be found to confirm. Now it 
turns out that the testimony of a third party, competent and disin- 
terested, confirms the statement of Marshall and Pinckney in every 
particular. Of consequence it is impossible for any honest man to 
believe the statement of Mr. Jefferson. 

The Emperor Napoleon, who, before his expedition to Egypt, was 
intimate with the councils of the Directory, and after his return 
overthrew that profligate oligarchy, and assumed the government 
of France, in his dictations at St. Helena, describes minutely the 
difterences between the United States and France. 

After observing that the measures taken by the Directory against 
the United States were equivalent to actual war, and mentioning 
the appointment of Messrs. Marshall, Pinckney, and Gerry, as 
plenipotentiaries, to treat for the re-establishment of a good under- 
standing, he says: — 

"In consequence of the events of the revolution the federal party 
in the United States had obtained an ascendancy, but the demo- 
cratic party was notwithstanding more numerous. The Directory 
thought to give greater force to the latter, by refusing to receive 
the two American plenipotentiaries who belonged to the federal 
party, and by consenting to receive the third who was of the oppo- 
site party. The Directory declared, moreover, that they could not 
enter into any negociation whatever, until America should have 
made reparation for the grievances of which the French republic 
had cause to complain. The 18th of January, 1798, they proposed 
a law to the two councils enacting that the neutral character of 
vessels should not be determined by their flag, but by the nature of 



250 

their cargoes, and that all vessels, laden in whole or in part with 
English merchandise, should be subject to confiscation." — "The 
result of this law was disastrous tor the Americans; French priva- 
teers made a number of prizes, and by the terms of the law they 
were all good. For it was sufficient for an American vessel to 
have only a few tons of English merchandise on board, to subject 
the entire cargo to confiscation. At the same time, as if there had 
not been already sufficient cause of resentment and alienation be- 
tween the two countries, the Directory demanded of the American 
Envoys a loan of forty-eight millions of francs, grounding the de- 
mand on the loan which the United States had formerly contracted 
with France, for the purpose of enabling them to succeed in escap- 
ing from the yoke of England. Certain intriguing agents, with 
which sort of instruments the office of foreign relations was at that 
period abundantly supplied, insinuated that the demand of a loan 
would be desisted from, upon the advance of twelve hundred 
thousand francs, to be divided between the Director B***** (Barras) 
and the Minister T********* (Talleyrand.)*" 

Marshall's historical account, and the official statements made 
by himself and Pinckney are here confirmed in every particular? 
the non-reception of the two federal envoys, the demand of a loan 
of one million sterling, of a douceur of £50,000 sterling, by the 
agents of Talleyrand, for his and Barras's benefit — are all distinctly 
confirmed by a man, who besides being fully acquainted with the 
subject, was no party to the difterence between the French and 
American governments, or to the contention between the federal 
and democratic parties, and who probably never saw, as he certainly 
does not refer to them, either Marshall's historical, or diplomatic, 
account of these proceedings. 

In addition it may be observed this statement of Marshall re- 
specting the infamous demand of Talleyrand, though thus confirmed 
by the dictations at St. Helena, has never been denied by any 
person of consideration in the world excepting Mr. Jefferson. 

Here I shall conclude — leaving the reputation of Marshall pro- 
tected, not by the buckler of Napoleon's testimony, but by the 
panoply of his own virtues. The man who assailed him with unre- 
lenting abuse, reviled and hated his great and gifted associates — 
patriots who were stamped by their Creator with marks of merit 
and renown. Of that man, who endeavoured to destroy the temple 
of American glory, and to build of its rubbish, a shrine for the 
worship of his own image, it may be said with perfect truth, that 
to those by whom he was the most honoured, he was the least 
known. 

* Memoires de Napoleon, Tome II. pp. 107, 8, 9, 10. 

[* There i.s nothing so remarkable in Mr. Jefferson's Writings as the per- 
petual contradiction to be found between their different portions. Mr. Tucker, 
in the concluding paragraph of his biography, says that Mr. Jefferson, "beyond 
all his cotemporaries, has impressed his opinions of government on the minds 



251 

of the great mass of his countr5'mcii.'' But the reader of Mr. Tucker's work, 
as well as of Mr. Jefferson's Writings, Avill search ia vain to find out what 
those opinions were. Mr. Jeflerson is cited universally by those who are, 
pleased to denominate themselves the states' rights party, as the founder of^ 
their faith; and the nulliliers, who regard themselves to be the stricter sect of 
that party, claim him as the author of their creed. Indeed it seems to be 
admitted that those Kentucky resolutions of which Mr. Jetlerson was the 
author, may be fairly referred to as authority to sustain it. If, therefore, we 
should expect to find Mr. Jefl^enson's opinions and practice consistent and 
uniform upon any important subject, it would be that of Slate sovereignty, or 
State rights, or those peculiar Virginia doctrines whose advocates never'lose 
an opportunity of proclaiming him as their leader, apostle, and political saint. 
Let us, however, turn from their declamations to their apostle's own epistles. 
In one to Col. Monroe, dated August 11th, 1796, on page 43 of Vol. II., he 
says: "There never will be money in the treasury till the confederacy shews 
its teeth. The states must see the rod; perhaps it must he felt by some of them. 
******* Ei^ery rational citizen must vnsh to see an effective instrument 
of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. 
A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed." 
To Col. Carrington he writes, August 4th, 1787, when propositions to amend 
the Articles of Confederacy were agitating the country: "It has been so often 
.said as to be generally believed, that Congress have no power by the Confede- 
ration to enforce any thing; for example, contributions of money. It was not 
necessary to give them that power expressly, they have it by the law of nature. 
When two parties make a compact, there results to each a power of compelling 
the other to execute it. Compulsion was never so easy as in our case, where 
a single frigate would soon levy on the commerce of any state the deficiency 
in its contributions." Here then we have Mr. Jeiferson's authority for the 
odious federal doctrine of deriving power by implication, and that for the 
monstrous purpose of coercing a sovereign state! If any thing could add to 
the horror of these suggestions, it would be that the peculiarly federal instru- 
ment, a navy, a frigate, was to be used as the rod to inflict this abominable 
chastisement. But if the states were subject to coercion under the old Con- 
federation, what must they be under the present Constitution, which has so 
much more impaired their sovereignty. Yet such is the infatuation of some 
Jeffersonianists — such the depth of those shades of ignorance and prejudice 
in which they hatch their conclusions, that perhaps they will deny what I have 
taken for granted, and require some proof derived from their idol's writings, 
that he ever impugned the sovereignty of the states since the adoption of the 
present Constitution, before they will believe him guilty of a heresy which 
conflicts so much with their creed. A letter of his to General Knox, dated 
August 10th, 1791, (Vol. III. p. 120,) will furnish the evidence required. It 
begins: 

"Dear Sir, — I have now the honour to return j'ou the petition of Mr. Moul- 
trie on behalf of the South Carolina Yazoo Company. Without noticing that 
some of the highest functions of sovereignty are assumed in the very papers 
which he annexes as his justification, I am of opinion that government should 
firmly maintain this ground; that the Indians have a right to the occupation 
of their lands, independent of the states within whose chartered limits they 
happen to be; that until they cede them by treaty or other transaction equiva- 
lent to a treaty, no act of a state can give a right to such lands; that neither 
under the present constitution nor the ancient confederation, had any state or 
person a right to treat with the Indians, without the consent of the general 
government; that that consent has never been given to any treaty for the ces- 
sion of the lands in question; that the government is determmed to exert all 
its energy for the patronage and protection of the rights of Indians, and the 
preservation of peace between the United States and them; and that if any 
settlements are made on the lands not ceded by them, vnthout the jrrcvious con- 
sent of the United States, the government will think itself bound, not only to 
declare to the Indians that such settlements are without the authority or pro- 



252 

tcction of the United States, but to remove them also by the public force.'' 
Well might Mr. Tucker remark, (Vol. I. p. 358,) "These doctrines are repug- 
nant not only to the claims set up by the state of Georgia to the Indian lands 
within its limits, but also to the doctrines of exclusive sovereignty which have 
been asserted by South Carolina, and which it deserves to be remarked, Mr. 
Jefferson's authority is mainly I'elied on to support." Indeed, no doctrine 
could be advanced more derogatory to that sovereignty which is assumed for 
the states by the disciples of Mr. Jefferson than that just cited from his pages, 
and which he promulgated under his official responsibility as Secretary of 
State, as a guide for the conduct of the Secretary at War. For it must be 
remembered that the constitution does not touch this subject at all, any further 
than it is embraced by that clause which gives Congress power "to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian 
tribes;" and that which contains the general prohibition against any state's 
making "any treaty, alliance or confederation." Yet this was enough for 
Mr. Jetferson by implication to oust a state of its jurisdiction and sovereignty 
over the lands within its own "chartered limits," because they "happen to be" 
the hunting grounds of a tribe of savages; and he distinctly declares that this 
limited corporation, the government of the United States, will remove by force 
settlements which may be made under the sovereign authority of a state! 

Mr. Jetferson has also been universally and clamorously cited by those who 
claim to be his more exclusive followers, as the constant opponent of the 
designs, which they have charged upon the federalists, to create a powerful 
and splendid central government, which would at length swallow up the 
sovereignty of the states. Among the proofs alleged to fix upon the federalists 
this design against the states, is their interpretation of the constitution to give 
to the general government a power to make roads and canals, &c. Let us 
see to what extent Mr. Jetferson has been opposed to these federal schemes of 
centralization; and to do that more distinctly, let us, in the first place, see how 
far he was inclined to crush them in the bud. In a letter to Judge Hopkinson 
of Pennsylvania, written from Paris, March 13th, 1789, (Vol. 11. p. 438,) he 
writes: "You say I have been dished up to you as an anti-federalist, and a.sk 
me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit 
citing; but since you ask it, I will tell it to you. I am not a federalist, because 
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party 
of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in any thing else, 
where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last 
degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with 
a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore, I protest to you, I am not of 
the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that of the anti- federalists. 
I approved from the first moment of the great mass of what is in the new 
constitution, the consolidation of the government, the organization," &c. &c. 
We have thus Mr. Jefferson's own assertion that, through the hottest of the 
contest for the establishment of this splendid central government which is so 
much the dread of his disciples, he was as much of the party of federalists as 
he could be of any party — even of one which would conduct him to heaven, 
and without following in whose ranks he would be excluded from those seats 
of bliss. And we have here also his authority that that boast of his disciples 
of being party men — that tho-^e appeals they are forever making to party feel- 
ing, "is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." 

But it may be said that this federal bias on the part of Mr. Jefferson was in 
the early purity of that party, and before it had, by strained interpretations of 
the constitution, sought to erect upon it that splendid government to which he 
so strenuously objected. Mr. Tucker (in reference to a letter of Mr. Jefferson 
to Mr. Sparks, of January 2. 1824, in which the former proposes that the public 
lands should be applied to purchasing and colonizing all the slaves in the 
United States) says, (Vol. II. p. 466,) "He then shows, as on all other occa- 
sions, that his construction of the constitution is strict or liberal, according as 
the national good would be best promoted." It would have been charitable, 
at least, to have attributed a similar patriotic motive to the liberal construction 



253 

which the federalists are charged with giving to the constitution. But far be 
it from me to attribute to the great leaders of that canonized party any such 
uncertain and presumptuous rule of interpretation. Theirs was derived, not 
from fancies of what might be for the national good to-day, and harm to-morrow, 
but from the immutable laws of right reason, and the best ascertained prin- 
ciples of judicial science. These led them so to construe the constitution as 
to attribute to the government which it established the power, under certain 
circumstances, to make roads and canals. The great sin imputed to this 
interpretation is, not that it proceeded from an error of judgment, but from a 
criminal design to invest the federal government with a degree of power and 
extent of patronage which would be fatal to the proper sovereignty of the 
states, lead to consolidation, and ultimately to monarchy, the first and last 
love of the federalists. Now, in Mr. Jefferson's second inaugural address, he 
recommends an amendment to the constitution, by which the surplus revenue 
of the United States might be applied, in time of peace, "to rivers, canals, 
roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects, in each state." 
(See Tucker, Vol. II. p. 182.) And in his message to Congress at the session 
which followed, he repeats the same recommendation. (Same Vol. p. 215.) 
Thus we see that Mr. Jeiferson was for going further than the federalists in 
giving these obnoxious powers to Congress. They were contented that they 
should be incident and limited; he was for conferring them as independent 
and general, and for adding to them the patronage of "arts, education, and 
other great objects in each state " "What these "other great objects" were, 
we are not told; but the phrase is at least as comprehensive as "the general 
welfare," for a desire to apply the national revenue to which the federalists 
have been so much abused by the idolaters of this same Mr. Jefferson. 

We have before seen that in a letter to Mr. Monroe, of January 2, 1815, he 
reprehends that incorrigibility "in our financial course" which continued to 
reject that very funding system, drawn from the British model, for the adop- 
tion of which he and his followers had so often denounced the federalists. 

After inconsistencies of the magnitude of those just exhibited, and in relation 
to doctrines which are mainly supported by the authority of Mr. Jefferson, the 
reader will be less surprised at a change of his views upon a subject in regard 
to which his influence has been more pernicious to his country, and a reference 
to which is peculiarly appropriate to a note upon the character of Marshall. 
Of course I allude to the judiciary. 

In his letter to Judge Hopkinson above cited, after mentioning his approval 
of "the qualified negative on laws given to the executive" by the constitution, 
he adds, "which, however, I should have liked better if associated with the 
judiciary also, as in New York." To Mr. Madison he writes from Paris, 
March 15, 1789, in answer to a long, profound, and admirable letter on the 
subject of the constitution; and in this reply, which is quite a dissertation, will 
be found the following passage. (Vol. II. p. 442.) "In the arguments in 
favour of a declaration of rights, yuu omit one which has great weight with 
me; the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary. This is a body, 
which, if rendered independent and kept strictly to their own department, merits 
great confidence for their learning and integrity. In fact, what degree of 
confidence would be too much for a body composed of such men as Wythe, 
Blair and Pendletonl On characters like these, the 'civium ardor prava 
jubentittm' would make no impression." 

Here we see Mr. Jefferson the advocate for an independent judiciary, to be 
a check alike upon the government and the people. How different his senti- 
ments were towards that body the instant it became a check upon his power, 
and ever afterwards, is too well known to need illustration. Even Mr. Tucker 
cannot refrain from remarking his inconsistency upon this subject; (Vol. I. p. 
281;) and the warmest admirers of Mr. Jefferson will unite with the great boc^ 
of his fellow citizens in testifying that Chief Justice Marshall, the object of 
his unremitted obloquy, was not inferior to his illustrious friends, Wythe, 
Blair and Pendleton, in all or any of the qualities and accomplishments which 
exalt a Judge or adorn a man. 

32 



i 



254 

To assign motives is generally a perilous task, and often an invidious one; 
and it will be entirely consistent with the humble share I have taken in the 
present publication to permit the reader to penetrate the causes of these great 
changes in Mr. Jefferson's opinions. But this may he abundantly proved from 
his writings, that nothing ever stood so high in his favour as not to become 
the object of his attack, as soon as it became a source of irritation. The public 
press of this country atfords a remarkable illustration of this fact. His early 
reflections upon the nature of our government and the situation of our people, 
sparsely scattered over an immense territory, made him perceive so clearly 
the necessity of some public vehicles of intelligence, that he did not hesitate 
to say, that "were it left to me to decide, whether we should have a govern- 
ment without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not 
hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." (See Tucker, Vol. I. p. 230.) But in 
following his correspondence, we shall find thai he first fell out with the fede- 
ral prints, and then tho«e of his own party began to share his reproaches as 
they produced his displeasure, until at last the whole are embraced in such 
sweeping denunciations as the following. In a letter of January 11, 1807, to 
a Mr. Norvel of Philadelphia, he says, (Vol. IV. p. 80,) "It is a melancholy 
truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the 
nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. 
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself 
becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." *****"] will 
add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than 
he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth 
than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." 

To Col. Monroe he writes, May 5, 1811, in relation to some misunderstand- 
ings among his friends at Washington, (Vol. IV. p. 164,) "These incidents 
are rendered more distressing in our country than elsewhere, because our 
printers ravin on the agonies of their victims as wolves do on the blood of 
the lamb. But the printers and the public are very different personages. 
The former may lead the latter a little out of their track, -while the deviation 
is insensible; but the moment they usurp their direction and that of their govern- 
ment, they will be reduced to their true places. The two last Congresses 
have been the theme of the most licentious reprobation for printers thirsting 
after war, some against France, and some against England. But the people 
wish for peace with both. They feel no incumbency on them to become the 
reformers of the other hemisphere, and to inculcate, with fire and sword, a 
return to moral order. When, indeed, peace shall become more losing than 
war, they may owe to their interests what these duixottes are clamouring for 
on false estimates of honour." 

He seems, at last, to have become so anxious for the punishment of "these 
duixottes" as to have derived some consolation from the capture of Washing- 
ton and the conflagration of the capilol, in the thought that these opprobrious 
fires might have scorched their vanities. In another letter to Col. Monroe, 
(January 1, 1815,) he says, (Vol. IV. p. 244,) "A truth now and then project- 
ing into the ocean of newspaper lies, serves like head-lands to correct our 
course. Indeed, my scepticism as to every thing I see in a newspaper, makes 
me indiflferent whether I ever see one. The embarrassments at Washington, 
in August last, I expected would be great in any state of things; but they 
proved greater than expected." * * * * "However, it ends well. It mortifies 
ourselves, and so may check, perhaps, the silly boasting spirit of our ncM's- 
papers, and it enlists the feeling of the world on our side," &c. Such was, 
at last, Mr. Jefferson's opinion of the public press of his country, by far the 
greater portion of which was then, and is now, addicted to nothing so strongly 
as praise of him, and thus did he verify an a.ssertion he made in his above 
cited letter to Judge Hopkinson, wherein he avers his great wish to keep his 
"name out of newspapers, because I find the pain of a little censure, even 
when it is unfounded, is more acute than the pleasure of much praise." (Vol. 
TI. p. 440.) 

Another class of Mr. JeflTerson's ardent admirers, whose first political crow- 



255 

ings, whether in July orations or stump speeches, are swelled with the praises 
of his name, but whose idolatry he rewards with reproach, are designated in 
the following extract of a letter to Mr. Madison: (Vol. IV. p. 426.) "But 
when his (Coke's) black-letter text, and uncouth but cunning learning got 
out of fashion, and the honied Mansfieldism of Blackstone became the stu- 
dent's hornbook, from that moment that profession (the nursery of Congress) 
began to slide into toryism, and nearly all the young brood of lawyers now 
are of that hue. They suppose themselves, indeed, to be whigs, because they 
no longer know what whigism or republicanism means." 

If to Mr. Jefferson's denunciations of the conductors of the public press, 
(which must embrace a large portion of their patrons.) — to his reproaches of 
the most enlightened class of our communities, which he himself calls "the 
nursery of Congress," — and to the sweeping charges contained in a previous 
letter to Mr. Giles (Vol. IV. p. 421) against all the branches of the federal 
government, and especially against that "vast accession of younger recruits" 
(to federalism, I presume,) "who, having nothing in them" (as he says) "of 
the feelings or principles of '7o, now look to a single and splendid government 
of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and monied incorporations, 
under the guise and cloak of their favoured branches of manufactures, com- 
merce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and 
beggared yeomanry," — if to all those embraced in these denunciations we add 
the nations of France and England, one of which he stigmatizes (Vol. IV. p. 
169) as "a den of robbers, and the other of pirates," — and, in short, all the 
people of Europe, whom he divides "into two classes, (Tucker, Vol. I. p. 231,) 
wolves and sheep," and to whose governments he prefers our Indian societies, 
— if, I say, we include all directly and necessarily embraced in these denun- 
ciations, it will be ditRcult to perceive in what large portion of mankind he 
repo.sed that confidence which is so often affirmed to entitle him to the praise 
of a profound and benevolent philosophy, in which he surpassed even the 
father of his country. It is, indeed, impossible for any just thinker, utterly to 
distrust one half of a community, and to repose entire confidence in the other; 
and yet this was the pretence of Mr. Jefferson with regard to his federal oppo- 
nents and democratic supporters. How was it possible for any one, not utterly 
blinded by party bigotry, to repose a generous trust in the virtue, intelligence, 
and patriotism of a people, and yet sincerely disbelieve in the existence of 
those excellencies in the illustrious men whom the same people and the great 
Washington selected for posts of power and honour! It is incredible that 
Mr. Jefierson could have been guilty of such stupidity; and it will be an appro- 
priate conclusion to this book, to cover the character of those whom it has 
sought to vindicate from Mr. Jefferson's criminations, with the mantle of his 
praise. It will be reversing the fabulous cure of antiquity, and making the 
brightness of the spear of Achilles dissipate the rancour produced by its rust. 

Mr. Jefferson had just passed through the great crisis in the career of his 
ambition, and reached the goal proposed. He describes (in a letter to John 
Dickinson, Vol. III. p. 454) "the storm through which he had passed" to the 
consummation he had so long and devoutly wished for, as "tremendous indeed." 
From the fearful billows he was helped to the desired landing-place by federal 
hands. When their rage became alarming to the safety of the country he 
had seen them sacrifice themselves, at once, that their blood might be as oil 
upon the waters. In a letter to Mr. Monroe, written during the conflict, 
(Vol. III. p. 452,) he says, "The very word convention gives them" (the fede- 
ralists) "the horrors, as in the present democratical spirit of America, they 
fear they should lose some of the favourite morsels of the constitution." To 
Mr. Madison he writes as soon as the contest is over, (Vol. III. p. 453,) "The 
whole body of the federalists, being alarmed with the danger of a dissolution 
of the government, had been made most anxiously to wish the very adminis- 
tration they had opposed, and to view it when obtained, as a child of their 
own." He repeats these sentiments to others of his correspondents, but always 
excepts from "the main body of the federalists" those whom he denominates 
"the leaders of the late faction, whom" (he says. Vol. III. p. 455) "1 abandon 



256 

as incurables, and will never turn an inch out ol' my way to reconcile them." 
The joy also with which he received the congratulation of his friends upon 
his new exaltation, is vividly expressed in his correspondence at that period. 
In the letter to Mr. Dickinson recently referred to, and written two days after 
his inauguration, he thus pours out his heart: "No pleasure can exceed that 
which I received from reading your letter of the 21st ultimo. It was like the 
joy we expect in the mansions of the Messed, when received with the embraces of 
our forefathers, we shall be welcomed with their blessing, as having done our 
part not unworthily of them." Thus it is evident that Mr. Jefferson was in a 
very happy frame of mind when he sat down to the composition of his inau- 
gural address, and in a very good humour with the federal party generally. 
It is also evident from the letters just referred to, that it was a leading feature 
of Mr. Jefferson's policy at that period to conciliate that party. 

Stuart, the celebrated portrait painter, used to say, I am told, that he could 
never take a likeness to satisfy himself until he had discovered to which of 
the lower animals the countenance to be portrayed bore a resemblance; nor 
can I distinguish the character of Mr. Jefferson's mind more expressively 
than by denominating it as of the chameleon order. Every reader must be 
struck at the rapidity with which his mind receives the hue of that of the 
correspondent of the hour, — the mind then in juxtaposition to his own. While 
a letter from the venerable Mrs. Adams is reflecting the light of her noble 
character and gentle virtues upon his soul, he can be softened and exalted 
into saying, (Tucker's Life, Vol. II. p. 167.) "I tolerate with the utmost lati- 
tude the right of others to differ from me in opinion without imputing to them 
criminality. I know too well the weakness and uncertainty of human reason 
to Avonder at its different results. Both of our political parties, at least the 
honest part of them, agree conscientiously in the same object, the public good," 
&c., while we have seen how truculently he wrote to others concerning one 
of those same political parties. And when his mind was familiar with the 
thoughts and deeds of French Jacobins, it became so imbued with their atro- 
cious colours, that to one of his correspondents of that school, he went to the 
tremendous length of hoping (Tucker's Life, Vol. I. p. 474) that the people of 
Europe would "bring at length, kings, nobles and priests to the scaffolds which 
they have been so long deluging with human blood." But it is useless to 
multiply examples of this remarkable characteristic of Mr. Jefferson's mind. 
The reader who has not been impressed with it from his ovv^n Writings, is 
beyond conviction from my pen; and I have but recalled it to the attention of 
the candid and enforced it by the instances just cited, the better to explain the 
phenomenon of his celebrated inaugural address. To understand that still 
more clearly, it should be remembered that Mr. Jefferson rested much of his 
fame upon the productions of his pen; and not the less so, though, like the stag 
in the fable, it was doomed to find its destruction in those branching horns in 
which he so greatly triumphed. Hence his Notes on Virginia, his elaborate 
correspondence, his treasured press-copies. 

It was this peculiar mind under the.se peculiar circumstances which was 
brought to the composition cf the inaugural address referred to. Therefore, 
it was not only natural, but almost irresistible, that its author should desire to 
embody in the most striking form, and mould into the most pleasing shape, 
and array in the fairest drapery of language, the profoundest maxims of civil 
wisdom and the surest guides of political conduct. Where should he seek 
these but in the great school in which he had been taught the sublimest lessons'? 
Whence could he derive them so well as from the experience and instruction 
of a life employed in the high scenes of the revolution, and among the heroic 
men who achieved itl Where else could he find those teachings of wisdom 
and virtue, whose truth and excellence were impressed upon the understand- 
ings and endeared to the hearts of the American peoplel While, therefore, 
gathering the best fruits of those lessons, the images of those who taught them 
continually hovered upon his memory. The noble host of revolutionary 
patriots crowded his avenues of thought; and under the benign influence of 
their intellectual presence he resumed, for the hour, the character of patriot, 



257 

in which he had once acted with that illustrious band. Then was he warmed 
into conceptions of the highest wisdom and the utterance of the noblest truth. 
And when he had arrayed in fair order and impressive form what he deemed 
"the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which 
ought to shape its administration," he recorded for testimony to all mankind, 
that "These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before 
us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The 
wisdom of all our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their 
attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith; the text of civic 
instruction; the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and 
should toe loander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to 
retrace our steps, and regam the road v^hich alone leads to peace, liberty and 
safety." Now, who were those sages, who those heroes of our revolution and 
reformation, unless those "Solomons in council and Sam.sons in the field" who 
had been previously abused so copiously by tlreir present eulogistl How can 
any general reference to "all our sages" and "our heroes" of that age exclude 
Washington, Adaois, Jay, Knox, Hamilton, the Lees and others, whose repu- 
tations are the subject of defence in this volume"? And what "road'' was there 
for us to "regain" in case "we should wander from it in moments of error or 
of alarm," except that which had been travelled by the administrations which 
preceded Mr. Jefferson's. To shew that I have not placed a strained con- 
struction upon this paper, I refer not only to the document itself, but to the 
history of the impression it made upon the public a.1, the time of its delivery, 
and particularly to the discontent it gave to its author's political friends. Mr. 
Tucker confesses (Vol. II. p. 90) that it "was ft&t4tltogether relished by all of 
his own party;" and that the zealots among them went so far as "to apprehend 
that he added one more to the many examples of those who, when they had 
attained power and place, forgot the principles they had professed in attaining 
it." Thus it is seen that those illustrious defendants at the bar of posterity 
find a complete defence against the charges brought against them by their 
distinguished accuser, under unworthy motives, and for corrupt purposes, in 
the eulogy he himself pronounced upon them, on a solemn occasion, whefT^ 
under happier influences and for the accomplishment of noble ends. 



y 



kr 



POSTSCRIPT. 



Just as I am about to send the last of these pages to the press, 
the April number of the New York Review is put into mj hands. 
The following paragraphs from an article in it, entitled "The Con- 
gress of 1774," so happily condenses and abundantly confirms so 
much that is scattered through this volume, that I avail myself of 
the high authority of that excellent periodical to justify and enforce 
it. "Mr. Jefferson's credibility as an historical witness" will here- 
after, it is hoped, be more justly appreciated tlian heretofore by 
the American public; and his future biographers would do well to 
cite, when they can, something besides his letters to establish 
improbable facts. As one instance, among many, of the unsatis- 
factory state in which the mind of the inquiring reader is left by 
this entire trust of Mr. Jefferson's biographers to the materials 
which his Writings furnish them with, I refer to the following, in 
Mr. Tucker's Life of him. In the table of contents to his twentieth 
chapter of his first volume, that author says, "Mr. Jefti^rson refuses 
a seat in the (Washington's) cabinet." In the chapter itself (p. 487) 
he writes: "In September, during the pendency of this commotion, 
(the Western insurrection in 1794,) Mr. Jefferson received a letter 
from Mr. Edmund Randolph, the Secretary of State, by express, 
which found him in bed, under a severe attack of rheumatism, 
inviting him to resume a place in the public councils; but the invi- 
tation was peremptorily declined." This may be true, but the 
following considerations render it very improbable. Mr. Jefferson 
had resigned the highest place in the cabinet but nine months 
before, against the most pressing solicitations of the President; in a 
manner, too, it would seem, to have precluded any reasonable hope 
of his ever resuming it. Still less reasonable would it have been 
to imagine that he would accept, or the President offer him, a place 
inferior to that which he resigned. Besides, the cabinet was full, 
and we are not informed that any member of it was to be removed 
to make way for him. What "place," then, "in the public coun- 
cils" was he to "resume?" None, possibly, but that of Secretary 
of State. But could the President have made Mr. Randolph the 
instrument of sending off" an express with an entreaty, of his own, 
to another person, to come and oust him of his place.^ Impossible, 
unless Mr. Randolph had volunteered in and insisted upon such a 
course. But if Mr. Randolph had done this, he must certainly 
have mentioned it, in his letter by the express, to Mr. Jefferson; 
if for no other purpose, to preclude an objection to Mr. Jefferson's 
acceptance on the score of delicacy. And it would seem equally 



260 

certain that Mr. Jefferson, in his reply, could not have passed over 
in silence this disinterested and, to him, most complimentary con- 
duct on the part of Mr. Randolph. Yet Mr. Jefferson's letter 
contains no thanks to Mr. Randolph for his generous and flattering- 
overture, and the latter receives from posterity none of the credit 
which such conduct vv^ould deserve. Therefore, it would seem 
that there must be some mistake in this part of Mr. Tucker's nar- 
rative. Either he has misinterpreted Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. 
Randolph, (which, for all the reader knows, is the only authority 
for it,) or Mr. Jefferson mistook Mr. Randolph's. The latter sup- 
position seems much more probable than that Gen. Washington, 
alarmed by the Western insurrection, sent off an express from 
Philadelphia to Monticello to summon its sage from his "peas and 
clover" to assist him in this domestic war. Yet possibly Mr. 
Tucker might have saved his reader from these doubts, and Mr. 
Jefferson's authority from being thus impugned by them, by pub- 
lishing a copy of Mr. Randolph's letter. 

Nor is it only about matters of fact that Mr. Jefferson's authority 
is deemed all sufficient by his eulogists; but they appear to regard 
cases of conscience to be settled by it with equal conclusiveness. 
Otherwise, Mr. Tucker might have thought it worth while to have 
made some effort to satisfy the public curiosity as to how Mr. 
Madison received those letters of censure and ridicule upon the 
conduct of Washington with which he was so often favoured by 
Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Tucker had peculiar facilities for doing this. 
But it would almost seem that there was a time when the "real 
Jeffersonians" of Virginia, especially, deemed it a condescension 
too great for them to take any trouble to satisfy any doubts which 
impugned the infallibility of their patron. This misty period had 
just begun to pass away when Mr. Tucker commenced his biogra- 
phical labours; and it is to be hoped that its disappearance will be 
hastened by the article referred to in the beginning of this Post- 
script, and particularly by the following extract from it, which 
commences at page 349 of the eighth number of the New York 
Review, and extends to the end of the article. 

"To resume the consideration of Mr. Jefferson's credibility as 
an historical witness: the second reason for questioning the value 
of his testimony, to which we were about to advert, after noticing 
his habitual inaccuracy, is, that a vein of detraction and disparage- 
ment runs through all his writings. Mr. Jefferson was in all re- 
spects what was aptly styled by the ancients "a minute philosopher," 
one of that "sect which" (according to Bishop Berkeley's descrip- 
tion) "diminish all the most valuable things, the thoughts, views, 
and hopes of men; all the knowledge, notions, and theories of the 
mind, they reduce to sense; human nature they contract and de- 
grade to the narrow, low standard, of animal life, and assign us 
only a small pittance of time, instead of immortality." This spirit 
is engrained in Mr. Jefferson's writings — it would be hard to dis- 



261 

cover in them an elevated view of any subject he touches. We 
know of no other production that derogates a tithe as much from 
the integrity of the revolutionary age. There is a black thread of 
malevolence that seems to be woven into all that he records. It 
is his delight to perpetuate all the small talk and gossiping that 
were retailed to him, and if he discovered any decaying slander, it 
is pitiable to contemplate the pains he took to stuff and preserve 
it in his historical museum. The frailties and foibles of his cotem- 
poraries, which, even if they existed as he describes them, should 
have been allowed to die their natural death, form the staple of his 
contributions to the history of his country. The characters of his 
contemporaries — their motives and feelings — are wantonly dis- 
paraged by him, while some were living and others were in their 
graves — it mattered little which. The alternative is consequently 
presented of an idolatrous faith in Mr. Jefterson's authority, at the 
sacrifice of the fame of some of the most eminent men in our annals, 
or the abandonment of that authority as unworthy of confidence. 
This may be decided on by a few specimens; passing by all the 
exaggerated criminations of Alexander Hamilton's political opi- 
nions, General Knox was "a fool and a babbler," — John Jay 
"avaricious and corrupt'' — John Dickinson timid — Richard Henry 
Lee "vague and frothy" — Marshall an unfaithful partizan historian 
— General Harry Lee a slanderous intriguer — that honest-hearted 
foreigner, Baron Steuben, a conspirator against the republican 
institutions of his adopted country — Patrick Henry "lazy," and so 
on and so on. But worse injury than all this is attempted to be 
done to that priceless patrimony, the fame of our ancestry, — for 
the name of Washington is not suffered to go unscathed, and the 
detraction is more insidious, because the poison is mixed up with 
eulogy and panegyric. The solemn impression of the matchless 
character of that being, that we have derived from all his actions, 
and all his words, and all his writings, is assaulted by what meets 
the eye on the pages of Mr. Jefferson's writings. Washington is 
described by him as liable to fits of passion, in which he could not 
command himself — as impaired in his mind before he retired from 
public life — as destitute of that confidence in the capacity of the 
people for self-government, which is a republican's great virtue — 
as the dupe of unprincipled counsellors — as a vulgar, passionate, 
and profane swearer — and as an unbeliever, and by inevitable 
consequence, an accomplished hypocrite, for during his whole life 
he was scrupulous in the discharge of overt acts of Christian belief. 
On two occasions has Mr. Jefferson recorded, as coming from the 
lips of George Washington, the language of petulant profanity — 
an angry and irreverent oath; — one of these, a wretched piece of 
gossip, taken at second or third hand, that hearsay evidence, of 
which Mr. Jett'erson was so unscrupulously in the habit of making 
registry, his biographer. Professor Tucker, has thought proper to 
transfer to his work to enliven its pages, and thus to aid in the 



262 

circulation of it. On this matter, we have but one question to ask, 
and that we ask confidently, — is there any other work with the 
smallest pretensions to character, that records any thing of the 
same description? Where is there any other memorial of Wash- 
ington's oaths? The bold imputation of religious dissimulation — 
the insincerity of his Christian faith — rests cliietty upon a prepos- 
terous story, registered by Mr. Jefferson, as a communication from 
Dr. Rush, in language the most offensive: fortunately, it came to 
light early enough to receive the explicit and recorded contradiction 
of two venerable men, who had it in their power to know that it 
was wholly without foundation; we mean the late Bishop White, 
and the Reverend Dr. Ashbel Green, an eminent presbyterian 
divine, still surviving. But nothing can be farther from our inten- 
tion, than to enter into any vindication of the memory of Washing- 
ton from such aspersions. The truth of his fame is, by the force 
of example, a great source of moral strength to us at home — it is 
the cause of honour to the American name abroad: when the imagi- 
nation of a great English poet turns to this country, he looks upon 

it as the land 
f 

"Where Washington hath left 

His awful memory 
A light for after times!" 

"When Mr. Jefferson recorded, what we doubt not were slanders 
on that memory, and when his biographer was tempted to repeat 
any one of them, where was their Virginia feeling, that either of 
them could thus allow himself to be "a witness against his neigh- 
hour without cause?" When the former registered the silly tattle, 
and the latter gave renewed circulation to it, we shall express 
ourselves very mildly, when we say, that there was manifested by 
neither, any extraordinary sensibility to the moral worth of a pa- 
triot's good name. 

"We have cited the injurious allusions to Washington's character, 
not for the purpose of refutation, but as illustration of the falla- 
ciousness of Mr. Jefferson's historical testimony. It is our delight 
to cling to a belief in which we have been trained, that never was the 
strife for freedom waged with purer or more single-hearted impulses, 
than in the revolution. In Mr. Jefferson's writings there is much 
that would divorce us froni that belief, and that reason, alone, may 
awaken distrust in his authority. How striking, even in this respect 
alone, the contrast between them and that most glorious monument 
ever raised to individual virtue and integrity — "the Writings of 
Washington!" How lamentable the contrast between the labours 
that devolved on their respective biographers — the one striving to 
bring every thought, word, and writing, into the clear, broad light 
of day, — the other screening and excusing, palliating, extenuating, 
and apologizing." 



1 



r 



jgjr« 




-^^' 



,s^ ">- 






































'^ 



^-^- .^ 



•>. 







.\^ 



* ..>: 



^■^ ^%. \w. 



^o. 





















.^^""^. 



V ■* .A 



..-^ 



V . '' ^ '■ « <?- 



■ ' . <■ s ^ ^O 






> 




Js^ 












-^ ^f. 









°^. * ■> ^. ^ oO 







* A y o 



X^-^c. 



^ - ::■ -:*--^.. 



0^ 



^•0 



0' X 







* o 



> .■ O N' <. ^ -<<, ' » * ^ ^^ a V ' » * -7^ 



V. ,^X 



# .^LL"*^% .-P^ ^ 



r^ :'■ 



* O - , A, ^ •7-'* V -- yv^ I , . V ^ 



X V 









.-^^ 












.•^'- 



^° -•*,. ; 



\\ . O N 






^.^^ ..... •^/^^''' 



,x^^"^. 



* .'X 



•0' . 






.>^ v-lX 



X^ 'Cl 






vV- 



» 1 . \ V 



ax"^' 

V 



,\- 



•/>- 



r> 






« <?< A , '■ •>;::, ,\. -^ '* -^ ^*- - -^ 






